I never thought about communicating with my colleagues excellent tip.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Hawaii
Brian Schatz
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 772
Yes26%
No73%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align96%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Brian Schatz
U.S. SenatorDemocratHawaii
SoupScore
Brian's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 44 sponsored · 168 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Ok this is not your blog.
You guys I just want to say that I encourage you to flesh this out, perfect it, dump it, adopt it verbatim, whatever you want. These are not magic words and activism is not about finding the exact phrasing in the replies. We just need to hit roughly the same theme, as simply as possible.
I think people everywhere are smart enough to hear “opportunity economy” and recognize it as a phrase no one they hang out with would use, so they are immediately skeptical. It’s not just Latin X or whatever it’s our whole vocabulary sounding like we’re from outer space, or a coastal city.
I haven’t seen any polling (that’s on purpose) but I think our message should be 1) they are ripping you off 2) they are taking your money and giving it to their billionaire buddies
Protect people, fight for people. No one wants to see us fighting for programs and projects and agencies.
Hey feel free to unfollow.
Just wanted to announce exclusively on this platform that I am against polio making a comeback.
Reposted byBrian Schatz
If someone's primary function as a leftist is curation -- dividing leftists whose politics are good enough from those who should be condemned for their insufficiencies -- plz understand, that's brand work. That's not organizing. It's not building anything. Those people aren't offering you anything.
Reposted byBrian Schatz
Chris Murphy: "We talk a lot about the coming dictatorship, but I think what's really coming is what you would call an oligarchy."
Reposted byBrian Schatz
in the coming years there will necessarily be a lot of playing defense, but I don't think that's incompatible with a constructive future oriented ethos
Reposted byBrian Schatz
Just asked Sen. SCHATZ (D-HI) about his experience so far on Bluesky.
"It's great!" he said. "It's obviously a huge improvement. I can follow my NBA, NFL, and politics without so many Nazis bugging me."
@schatz.bsky.social
Reposted byBrian Schatz
.@schatz.bsky.social maybe introduce the bill tonight?
I’m not gonna do this constantly I promise but 150k followers is cool and I appreciate it.
Reposted byBrian Schatz
a lot of you seem to basically believe that politics is over, history has ended and the absence of legal or electoral consequences for trump means that he is the only person with agency. you all are recapitulating the basic conceit of trump’s alleged invincibility, but from the center left
Not mention on the fact that they aggressively opposed a carbon fee in the first place.
Reposted byBrian Schatz
We are simply not going to mutual aid ourselves out of climate change, folks.
I’m gonna dodge the second one too.
It’s the county that decides this but I think -Not until we have enough housing for the people.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History772 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
772 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-01 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Points of Order Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 3114) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (44-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-43) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-41) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-07-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-41) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (59-38) |
| 2025-07-30 | S.J. Res. 34 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 34 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (24-73) |
| 2025-07-30 | S.J. Res. 41 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 41 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (27-70) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-07-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-49) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-44) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-07-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-39) |
| 2025-07-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-07-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-07-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-41) |
| 2025-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (61-35) |
| 2025-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-07-22 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (91-7, 3/5 majority required) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.