Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 14, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development · Source
4.3×
the Democratic governor rate of personal attacks
18% of 1,469 statements contain a personal attack (265 statements); the average for Democratic governors is 4.2%. Ranks 1st of 21, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Newsom’s posts on X and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Democratic governors and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against Democratic governors. 6.6% of Newsom’s statements claim credit, in the bottom tenth of Democratic governors (average 26%). 4.5% of Newsom’s statements use an extreme label, 2.7 times the Democratic governor average of 1.7%.
The measures on which Newsom sits furthest from the middle of Democratic governors, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Personal attacks
18%
Democratic governors average 4.2% · ranks 1st of 21
Credit claiming
6.6%
Democratic governors average 26% · ranks 20th of 21
Extreme labels
4.5%
Democratic governors average 1.7% · ranks 2nd of 21
CSIP ideology
−0.94
More liberal than 80% of Democratic governors · ± 0.06
Policy discussion
36%
Democratic governors average 49% · ranks 16th of 21
Bipartisanship
1.4%
Democratic governors average 3.7% · ranks 16th of 21
Peer group: Democratic governors. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Newsom, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Newsom is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Newsom says
Newsom attacks opponents personally more than any other Democratic governor. Personal attacks in 18% of 1,469 statements, against 4.2% for the average Democratic governor; 1st of 21.
An AI model reads each of Newsom’s 1,469 statements in the current term (1,469 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 Democratic governors and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the current term
0%80%
Newsom
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion523 statements
36%
49%
16th of 21
Personal attacks265 statements
18%
4%
1st of 21
Policy criticism245 statements
17%
14%
9th of 21
Credit claiming97 statements
7%
26%
20th of 21
Bipartisanship20 statements
1%
4%
16th of 21
Show the data
| Row | Newsom | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 36% | 49% |
| Personal attacks | 18% | 4% |
| Policy criticism | 17% | 14% |
| Credit claiming | 7% | 26% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 4% |
1,469
statements classified
1,469 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,469 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Newsom; the thin grey bar is the average Democratic governors. A longer thick bar means Newsom does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Newsom used extreme labels in 4.5% of statements, 2.7 times the peer average. 66 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 1.7%.
- “MAGA”35
- “fascist”2
- “communist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MAGA24
- Donald Trump10
- Trump9
- red states4
- America3
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 current term
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 59 | 1.7% | 8.5% | 67.8% | 13.6% | 27.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 39.3% | 42.9% | 3.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 24 | 4.2% | 41.7% | 58.3% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 47.4% | 52.6% | 5.3% | 10.5% | 5.3% |
| Jun ’25 | 122 | 15.6% | 32.0% | 41.8% | 0.0% | 4.9% | 4.9% |
| Jul ’25 | 79 | 17.7% | 22.8% | 25.3% | 1.3% | 1.3% | 1.3% |
| Aug ’25 | 143 | 17.5% | 11.2% | 20.3% | 0.0% | 4.2% | 3.5% |
| Sep ’25 | 137 | 13.1% | 13.9% | 21.2% | 0.0% | 2.9% | 4.4% |
| Oct ’25 | 144 | 23.6% | 19.4% | 30.6% | 0.7% | 3.5% | 2.8% |
| Nov ’25 | 57 | 19.3% | 10.5% | 12.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.5% |
| Dec ’25 | 41 | 14.6% | 9.8% | 14.6% | 0.0% | 4.9% | 2.4% |
| Jan ’26 | 86 | 22.1% | 23.3% | 31.4% | 2.3% | 2.3% | 1.2% |
| Feb ’26 | 70 | 28.6% | 12.9% | 14.3% | 1.4% | 1.4% | 1.4% |
| Mar ’26 | 92 | 25.0% | 12.0% | 25.0% | 1.1% | 3.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 24 | 25.0% | 12.5% | 16.7% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 29.2% |
| May ’26 | 51 | 17.6% | 39.2% | 56.9% | 2.0% | 13.7% | 33.3% |
| Jun ’26 | 54 | 22.2% | 16.7% | 29.6% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 3.7% |
| Jul ’26 | 50 | 38.0% | 10.0% | 52.0% | 0.0% | 2.0% | 6.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 46 | 21.7% | 4.3% | 69.6% | 0.0% | 13.0% | 8.7% |
| Sep ’26 | 89 | 10.1% | 1.1% | 71.9% | 0.0% | 22.5% | 2.3% |
| Oct ’26 | 47 | 19.1% | 0.0% | 55.3% | 0.0% | 8.5% | 6.4% |
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 current term, 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%. One month is hatched here.
In Newsom’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Donald Trump · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · policy discussion; Education; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA · 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.
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Law · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at Donald Trump · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TrumpSource
All 1,469 statements
Newest first, the current term
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: 1,469 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Newsom talks about most: 27% of policy statements, above the peer share. Peers give it 17%.
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 Newsom talks about. The bills Newsom sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Newsom talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the current term
0%35%
Newsom
Peers
Government Operations and Politics140 statements
27%
17%
Economics and Public Finance103 statements
20%
20%
Health69 statements
13%
21%
Armed Forces and National Security62 statements
12%
5%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues49 statements
9%
11%
Show the data
| Row | Newsom | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 27% | 17% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 20% | 20% |
| Health | 13% | 21% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 12% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 9% | 11% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Newsom’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Democratic governors. 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 Democratic governors averages.
Governors do not sponsor bills, so there is nothing to compare.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Newsom legislates on exactly the areas Newsom 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 Newsom sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Newsom sits at −0.94 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 80% of Democratic governors. Approximate range −1.01 to −0.88, which understates the uncertainty; from 8,579 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”.
−0.94
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.01 to −0.88. From 8,579 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Newsom, 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 Newsom’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 Newsom sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Democratic governors23 · median −0.8
Governors48 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Newsom |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic governors | 23 | −0.8 | 17% |
| Governors | 48 | +0.4 | 8% |
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 Newsom 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 Newsom.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this governor yet.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the current term.Governors do not cast roll-call votes.
Legislation
No bills for the current term.Governors do not sponsor bills.
Online
The lab crawls Newsom’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 Newsom posts with a vision model.
Websites
No websites are tracked for this official.
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 Newsom posted
No images from Newsom’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.
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 Newsom is most unusual among Democratic governors, 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
- gov-CA-gavin-newsom
- Governor id
- CA-gavin-newsom
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.
- Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
- ImagesOct 28, 2026todayImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.
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