Agreement 0.31 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State Senate Democrats is 0.56. Ranks 224th of 228, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Williams’s statements matches the mix in the bills Williams sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State Senate Democrats.
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. 0% of the 16 bills Williams sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of the Missouri Senate. 4.3% of Williams’s statements claim credit, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Democrats (average 16%).
The measures on which Williams sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Talk-to-bills agreement
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 224th of 228
Out of committee
Missouri Senate average 11% · ranks 33rd of 33
Credit claiming
State Senate Democrats average 16% · ranks 271st of 329
From Missouri, 2022
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 10th of 12 State Senate Democrats
Policy criticism
State Senate Democrats average 10% · ranks 101st of 329
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.09
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Williams, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Williams is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Williams attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State Senate Democrat. Personal attacks in 0.6% of 536 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 142nd of 329.
An AI model reads each of Williams’s 536 statements in the MO 2025–26 session (536 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the MO 2025–26 session
| Row | Williams | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 37% | 43% |
| Policy criticism | 14% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 4% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
statements classified
536 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 536 |
The thick bar is Williams; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Williams does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Williams used extreme labels in 0.2% of statements, 23% of the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at civilian leaders; peers 0.8%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Share of statements per month, the MO 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 35.7% | 57.1% | 7.1% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 105 | 0.9% | 20.9% | 50.5% | 1.9% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 40 | 2.5% | 25.0% | 45.0% | 2.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 22 | 4.5% | 18.2% | 59.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’25 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 11.1% | 38.9% | 5.6% | 2.8% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 51 | 0.0% | 13.7% | 31.4% | 5.9% | 5.9% | 2.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 21.1% | 31.6% | 0.0% | 10.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 26 | 0.0% | 3.9% | 53.8% | 0.0% | 3.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 81 | 0.0% | 8.6% | 28.4% | 1.2% | 4.9% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 56 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 16.1% | 3.6% | 5.4% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 11.8% | 41.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 41 | 0.0% | 2.4% | 29.3% | 0.0% | 2.4% | 0.0% |
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the MO 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 9 months are hatched here; 6 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Armed Forces and National Security · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 8, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: administration · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 19, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at civilian leaders · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: administrationSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: administrationSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TrumpSource
Newest first, the MO 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 536 posts on X.
Health is what Williams talks about most: 54% of policy statements, 3.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.31 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 224th of 228).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Williams talks about. The bills Williams sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the MO 2025–26 session
| Row | Williams | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 54% | 17% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 22% | 8% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 12% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 12% | 8% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 8% | 14% |
The thick bar is the share of Williams’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 59%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 54% | 17% | 0% | 15% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 22% | 8% | 18% | 9% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 12% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 12% | 8% | 2% | 5% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 8% | 14% | 6% | 8% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 224th of 228.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Williams legislates on exactly the areas Williams talks about, in the same proportions; 0 means no overlap. It does not say whether the bills match the positions in the statements, only the subjects. Bills Williams sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Williams sits at −0.65 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 50% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.74 to −0.56, which understates the uncertainty; from 28 donors and no roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.74 to −0.56. From 28 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Williams, coloured by its side of 0 (blue left, red right, deeper further out); the bar through it is the approximate range (±1.96 standard errors), which understates the uncertainty; the grey ticks below are the medians of Williams’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Williams |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 50% |
| Missouri Senate | 33 | +0.5 | 6% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 22% |
Every small dot is one official on the same scale, coloured by its own score (blue left of 0, red right of 0, grey at 0, deeper further out) and spread up and down only to keep dots apart; where a group is crowded the dots overlap, and darker patches mean more officials. The large outlined dot is Williams in every row; the rule is each group’s median. The table under the figure gives the share of each group to the left of Williams.
Williams reported $107.2K in the 2022 cycle, above the State Senate Democrats’ median of $64.8K. State filings report no small-donation total. 79% of itemized individual money came from Missouri.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
itemized in the 2022 cycle
From 16 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $64.8K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2022 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $11.6K | 10.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $94.6K | 88.2% |
| Party committees | $1,000 | 0.9% |
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2022. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2022.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $72.6K |
| 2022 cycle | $107.2K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 79% came from Missouri.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Missouri | $9,150 |
| Arizona | $2,000 |
| Florida | $250 |
| Illinois | $200 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Missouri
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Missouri. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2022 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2022 cycle.
Itemized, 2022 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
No roll-call votes for the MO 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Williams sponsored 16 bills in the MO 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 3 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Missouri Senate average 11%; 33rd of 33).
The bills Williams sponsored and cosponsored in the MO 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Counts for the MO 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 16 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Ink blocks are bills Williams sponsored, ochre blocks bills Williams cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Missouri Senate average 11%. Ranks 33rd of 33.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Williams, by number of shared bills in the MO 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Williams’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 1788 | Creates provisions relating to revenues of airports | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Second Read and Referred S Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee May 7, 2026 |
| SB 1625 | Prohibits the transfer of any balance at the end of a biennium in certain state funds to the state general revenue fund | Sponsor | Feb 4, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Second Read and Referred S Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee Feb 12, 2026 |
| SB 1624 | Modifies authority of the St. Louis City Register of Deeds | Sponsor | Feb 4, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Second Read and Referred S Local Government, Elections and Pensions Committee Feb 12, 2026 |
| SB 946 | Modifies provisions relating to dissolution of marriage or legal separation and pregnancy status | Sponsor | Jan 7, 2026 | In committee | Families(model) | Hearing Conducted S Families, Seniors and Health Committee Feb 11, 2026 |
| SB 853 | Modifies provisions relating to property tax assessments | Sponsor | Jan 7, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Bill Combined w/SCS SBs 1410 & 853 Mar 11, 2026 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Williams’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Williams’s official and campaign websites (weekly for Congress, monthly for the states) and keeps every page’s text, so changes can be read later; it also records social accounts and describes the images Williams posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
No images from Williams’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline is the measure on which Williams is most unusual among State Senate Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
