68% of 817 statements discuss policy (556 statements); the average for State Senate Democrats is 43%. Ranks 22nd of 329, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Moore’s posts on X and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. Moore sits at −0.27 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 93% of State Senate Democrats. 31% of Moore’s statements claim credit, 1.9 times the State Senate Democrat average of 16%.
The measures on which Moore 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.
Policy discussion
State Senate Democrats average 43% · ranks 22nd of 329
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 93% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.04
Credit claiming
State Senate Democrats average 16% · ranks 40th of 329
Out of committee
Massachusetts Senate average 2.0% · ranks 31st of 40
Talk-to-bills agreement
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 53rd of 228
Bipartisanship
State Senate Democrats average 3.4% · ranks 90th of 329
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Moore, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Moore is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Moore attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State Senate Democrat. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 817 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 150th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Moore’s 817 statements in the MA 2025–26 session (817 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 MA 2025–26 session
| Row | Moore | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 68% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 31% | 16% |
| Policy criticism | 12% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
statements classified
817 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 817 |
The thick bar is Moore; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Moore does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Moore used extreme labels in 0.2% of statements, 29% of the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at fascists; 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 MA 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 33 | 0.0% | 6.1% | 48.5% | 0.0% | 45.5% | 3.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 4.2% | 58.3% | 12.5% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 28.0% | 72.0% | 8.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 18.5% | 77.8% | 7.4% | 37.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 49 | 0.0% | 12.2% | 83.7% | 4.1% | 67.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 42 | 0.0% | 28.6% | 66.7% | 4.8% | 21.4% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 22.6% | 71.0% | 0.0% | 41.9% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 20.8% | 58.3% | 8.3% | 29.2% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 37 | 0.0% | 16.2% | 64.9% | 5.4% | 35.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 23 | 0.0% | 4.3% | 47.8% | 0.0% | 26.1% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 32 | 3.1% | 12.5% | 59.4% | 12.5% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 33 | 0.0% | 6.1% | 75.8% | 6.1% | 21.2% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 41 | 0.0% | 14.6% | 46.3% | 9.8% | 21.9% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 32 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 59.4% | 6.3% | 31.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 37 | 0.0% | 2.7% | 64.9% | 2.7% | 51.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 49 | 0.0% | 4.1% | 79.6% | 4.1% | 51.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 46 | 0.0% | 13.0% | 58.7% | 8.7% | 37.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 44 | 0.0% | 15.9% | 59.1% | 4.5% | 20.4% | 2.3% |
| Aug ’26 | 40 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 72.5% | 0.0% | 15.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 48 | 4.2% | 10.4% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 72 | 0.0% | 6.9% | 87.5% | 0.0% | 11.1% | 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 MA 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%.
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 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Commerce; Transportation and Public Works · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 28, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Commerce; Science, Technology, Communications; Government Operations and Politics; target: Trump · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 7, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “fascist” aimed at fascists · 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 · policy discussion · Commerce · Science, Technology, Communications · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource
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 · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: presidentSource
Newest first, the MA 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: 817 posts on X.
Science, Technology, Communications is what Moore talks about most: 19% of policy statements, 7.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 53rd 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 Moore talks about. The bills Moore sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the MA 2025–26 session
| Row | Moore | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Science, Technology, Communications | 19% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 14% |
| Health | 13% | 17% |
| Education | 12% | 15% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 9% | 8% |
The thick bar is the share of Moore’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 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Science, Technology, Communications | 19% | 3% | 2% | 1% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 14% | 5% | 8% |
| Health | 13% | 17% | 21% | 15% |
| Education | 12% | 15% | 5% | 9% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 9% | 8% | 11% | 9% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 53rd of 228.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Moore legislates on exactly the areas Moore 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 Moore sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Moore sits at −0.27 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 93% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.31 to −0.23, which understates the uncertainty; from 803 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 −0.31 to −0.23. From 803 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Moore, 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 Moore’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 Moore |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 93% |
| Massachusetts Senate | 39 | −0.7 | 79% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 41% |
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 Moore 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 Moore.
Moore reported $117.2K in the 2026 cycle, 2.1 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 89% of itemized individual money came from Massachusetts.
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 2026 cycle
From 362 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $103.5K | 88.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $13.7K | 11.7% |
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 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $111.6K |
| 2022 cycle | $115.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $109.9K |
| 2026 cycle | $117.2K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 89% came from Massachusetts.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Massachusetts | $91.7K |
| California | $4,955 |
| Maryland | $2,000 |
| Florida | $1,743 |
| Rhode Island | $1,625 |
| New Hampshire | $800 |
| Illinois | $643 |
| Georgia | $400 |
| New York | $250 |
| Connecticut | $100 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | 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 |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | 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 |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Massachusetts
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 Massachusetts. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
No roll-call votes for the MA 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Moore sponsored 192 bills in the MA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 445 others. 0.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Massachusetts Senate average 2.0%; 31st of 40).
The bills Moore sponsored and cosponsored in the MA 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 MA 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 192 | 190 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 445 | 439 | 18 | 11 | 6 |
Ink blocks are bills Moore sponsored, ochre blocks bills Moore 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
Massachusetts Senate average 2.0%. Ranks 31st of 40.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Moore, by number of shared bills in the MA 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 Moore’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S 3263 | An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Timothy Cluett, an employee of the Worcester county sheriff’s office | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | Read, rules suspended, read second and ordered to a third reading Oct 15, 2026 |
| S 3240 | An Act establishing protections for workers in extreme temperatures | Cosponsor | Aug 10, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means Aug 10, 2026 |
| S 3234 | An Act authorizing the town of Millbury to grant additional liquor licenses | Cosponsor | Aug 4, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Commerce(model) | Read second, ordered to a third reading, read third (title changed) and passed to be engrossed Oct 22, 2026 |
| S 3247 | Resolutions to call on the congressional delegation to support the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons | Cosponsor | Jul 31, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs(model) | Read; and referred to the committee on House Steering, Policy and Scheduling Aug 6, 2026 |
| S 3206 | Amendment S.3206 | Sponsor | Jul 23, 2026 | Introduced | Economics and Public Finance(model) | See S3178 Jul 23, 2026 |
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Moore’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Moore’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 Moore 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 Moore’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 Moore 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
