Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 14, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy; Environmental Protection · Source
0.68
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top tenth of State Senate Democrats
Agreement 0.68 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State Senate Democrats is 0.56. Ranks 17th of 228, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Creem’s statements matches the mix in the bills Creem sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State Senate Democrats.
At a glance
5 measures against State Senate Democrats. Creem sits at −0.88 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 80% of State Senate Democrats. 2.4% of the 123 bills Creem sponsored got out of committee, in the top half of the Massachusetts Senate.
The measures on which Creem 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
0.68
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 17th of 228
CSIP ideology
−0.88
More liberal than 80% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.05
Out of committee
2.4%
Massachusetts Senate average 2.0% · ranks 13th of 40
From Massachusetts, 2026
97%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 237th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Itemized, 2026
$35.8K
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 447th of 746
Statements
40
40 posts on X
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Creem, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Creem is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Creem says
Creem attacks opponents personally less than 75% of State Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 0% of 40 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 248th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Creem’s 40 statements in the MA 2025–26 session (40 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.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Creem
Peers
Rank
Credit claiming22 statements
55%
16%
2nd of 329
Policy discussion21 statements
53%
43%
116th of 329
Policy criticism4 statements
10%
10%
139th of 329
Bipartisanship4 statements
10%
3%
19th of 329
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
248th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Creem | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Credit claiming | 55% | 16% |
| Policy discussion | 53% | 43% |
| Policy criticism | 10% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 10% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
40
statements classified
40 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 40 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Creem; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Creem does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Creem used no extreme labels in 40 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
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.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the MA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 7 | — (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 ’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) |
| Mar ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 20.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’25 | 9 | — (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 | 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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
How to read the strips
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%. 21 months are hatched here; 17 of them have no statements.
In Creem’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 16, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 19, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health · Source
Examples by category
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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 40 statements
Newest first, the MA 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 40 posts on X.
Policy
Environmental Protection is what Creem talks about most: 24% of policy statements, 5.4 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 17th 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 Creem talks about. The bills Creem sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Creem talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Creem
Peers
Environmental Protection5 statements
24%
4%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues3 statements
14%
8%
Health3 statements
14%
17%
Commerce2 statements
10%
4%
Crime and Law Enforcement2 statements
10%
8%
Show the data
| Row | Creem | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Protection | 24% | 4% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 14% | 8% |
| Health | 14% | 17% |
| Commerce | 10% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 10% | 8% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Creem’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.
Talks about · legislates on
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.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Protection | 24% | 4% | 12% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 14% | 8% | 9% | 5% |
| Health | 14% | 17% | 15% | 15% |
| Commerce | 10% | 4% | 5% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 10% | 8% | 13% | 9% |
0.68
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 17th of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Creem legislates on exactly the areas Creem 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 Creem sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Creem sits at −0.88 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 80% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.93 to −0.83, which understates the uncertainty; from 485 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”.
−0.88
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.93 to −0.83. From 485 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Creem, 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 Creem’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
What this means, and what it doesn’t
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.
Where Creem sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Massachusetts Senate39 · median −0.7
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Creem |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 20% |
| Massachusetts Senate | 39 | −0.7 | 21% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 9% |
How to read the strips
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 Creem 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 Creem.
Money
Creem reported $35.8K in the 2026 cycle, below the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 97% 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.
$35.8K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 156 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)86 squares$31.0K
- PACs and other committees14 squares$4,850
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $31.0K | 86.5% |
| PACs and other committees | $4,850 | 13.5% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
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.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $62.0K |
| 2022 cycle | $13.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $10.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $35.8K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 97% came from Massachusetts.
- Massachusetts$30.0K
- California$500
- New York$100
- New Hampshire$100
- Connecticut$100
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Massachusetts | $30.0K |
| California | $500 |
| Maine | $100 |
| New Hampshire | $100 |
| New York | $100 |
| Connecticut | $100 |
| Maryland | $36 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | 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 |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
156
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
97%
from Massachusetts
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
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.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$9,575 50 donors
- ATTORNEY$4,250 16 donors
- RETIRED$2,456 9 donors
- CONSULTANT$1,600 9 donors
- LOBBYIST$1,400 6 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- LOCAL 509 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INT'L UNION COMM ON POL ED, MA WORKERS' POL ACTION COMM.$1,000
- MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMM$1,000
- BOSTON CARMEN'S UNION PAC$500
- MA EMERGENCY MEDICAL PAC$500
- MA ORTHOPEDIC ASSOC. POL ACTION COMM$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- KEARNEY, DONOVAN & MCGEE, P.C.$800 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the MA 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Creem sponsored 123 bills in the MA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 37 others. 2.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Massachusetts Senate average 2.0%; 13th of 40).
The bills Creem 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.
Bills by stage
Counts for the MA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 123 | 115 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 37 | 32 | 7 | 3 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Creem sponsored, ochre blocks bills Creem cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
2.4%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Massachusetts Senate average 2.0%. Ranks 13th of 40.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Creem, by number of shared bills in the MA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Jamie Eldridge43
- Jo Comerford36
- Pat Jehlen32
- Becca Rausch23
- John Keenan18
What this means, and what it doesn’t
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 Creem’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HD 6373 | An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Monica C. Murphy, an employee of the department of children and families | Cosponsor | Oct 13, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | Senate concurred Oct 22, 2026 |
| H 5707 | An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Monica C. Murphy, an employee of the department of children and families | Cosponsor | Oct 13, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Senate concurred Oct 22, 2026 |
| S 3272 | Amendment S.3272 | Sponsor | Oct 8, 2026 | Introduced | Government Operations and Politics(model) | See H4138 Oct 8, 2026 |
| S 3249 | An Act authorizing the city of Newton to issue pension obligation bonds or notes | Sponsor | Aug 6, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Read; and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means Aug 10, 2026 |
| S 3221 | Amendment S.3221 | Cosponsor | Jul 23, 2026 | Introduced | Economics and Public Finance(model) | See S3178 Jul 23, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Creem’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Creem’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 Creem posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 25
pages crawled
21changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“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.
Social accounts
Images Creem posted
No images from Creem’s posts have been described.
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
State floor speeches
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
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
The headline is the measure on which Creem 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- ece82669-b6f6-4f0f-ae5d-7b238b1cd1dd
- Open States
- ocd-person/ece82669-b6f6-4f0f-ae5d-7b238b1cd1dd
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
Freshness of this profile’s data
- What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
- Roll calls (state)Oct 21, 20267 days agoOpen States floor roll calls, 2019 on (none for AK and MO).
- Bills (state)Oct 28, 2026todayOpen States bills and sponsors, 2019 on; stages from roll calls.
- Campaign money (state)no dateState campaign-finance agencies, 2019 on; aggregates only.
- Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
- WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
- State floor speechesOct 21, 20267 days agoState floor speech turns (published transcripts and captions), 2020 on; not LLM-classified.
How the measures work
- What politicians say
- Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
- Extreme labels
- A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
- Policy areas and agreement
- Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
- Ideology (CSIP)
- Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
- Campaign money
- Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
- Votes and key votes
- Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
- Peers and ranks
- Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab