If you wanted a truly complete list you'd have to slog through the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft (also called the R.E. or the Pauly). Except that it's 80-something volumes and isn't set up for general collection of material, but rather for reference to specific people. A more targeted prosopography would be Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic, to which there are various works that could be used as supplements. Senators were not magistrates, but since the quaestorship was for all intents and purposes the entrance requirement into the ordo (and, following the 80s, was legally as well) individuals holding magistracy can be in most cases pretty reasonably supposed to be of senatorial rank.

Except that this whole exercise is impossible. By the late first century there were six hundred senators, of whom we know only a handful. Even prior to this, when the senate was routinely made up of only about three hundred, we lack the information to identify the vast majority of senators. Moreover a "color-coded map of the changing ideals" assumes an incorrect model of Roman socio-political life. It assumes that individual senators had publicly expressed, consistent political ideologies that were maintained over time. This has been repeatedly shown to be totally untrue. Particular circumstances, personal dolor, crises, the particular office held at any given point (Cato as tribune passed a grain bill, for example), personal enmities, pet projects, and other considerations were the governors of the Roman politician's actions, not consistent political ideologies. Roman politicians did not have, except in a handful of extremely unusual cases, legislative programs publicly divulged when running for magistracy, to say nothing of electoral platforms. The Republican world knew no such thing as political parties. Attempting to track such things would be doomed to failure, simply for the reason that such a concept does not apply to the Roman world