Questions people actually ask
What Thrive is, what it is not yet, how the scorecard and endorsements work, and what happens to your email if you sign up.
1What is the Thrive Party?
A small political party and movement in Massachusetts, started in Greenfield in November 2026. It's built on one test: every policy has to be Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise at the same time.
2Is it a real party?
Not yet. The plan is to build the mailing list first, then register a PAC, then file for political designation with the Secretary of the Commonwealth (50 Massachusetts registered voters filing a form). Recognized party status comes later, through votes or enrollment.
3What does signing up do?
Puts you on the mailing list. That's it — no money, no change to your voter registration, and it's not the designation filing. You'll get updates, and when the time comes, the scorecard and questionnaire results.
4Can I donate?
Not yet. The party can't take donations until the designation exists, and the PAC isn't registered yet. When it is, an individual can give up to $500 a year to the PAC, and the PAC can give up to $500 a year to each endorsed candidate. Contributions aren't tax-deductible.
5What does the $500 actually do?
Less than the endorsement itself. The amount is capped by Massachusetts law. The real value to a candidate is the signal to voters who care about the three principles, which can move votes in a low-turnout primary.
6How do you decide who to endorse?
A 34-item scorecard covering all eight planks, scored on voting record, bill sponsorship, questionnaire answers, and public statements. Candidates scoring 70 or above get funded and endorsed; 50 to 69 are watched; below 50, no.
7What are the eight planks?
Economy, Healthcare, Education, Housing, Government Reform, Environment and Energy, National Defense, and Immigration. The full text is in the platform draft linked on this site.
8Who runs it?
Craig Shrimpton, from Greenfield, Massachusetts.
9How can I help?
Join the mailing list, read the platform, pass it to one person, and tell us where it fails. Later: help gather designation signatures and spread the scorecard.
10What happens to my email address?
Thrive updates only. It's never sold, rented, or shared, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Signing up is not a donation and doesn't change your voter registration.
Be one of the first 500
The mailing list is the whole plan right now. At 500 subscribers the PAC registers, donations open, and the 2028 endorsement work begins.
The most recent scorecard
Eight Massachusetts legislators scored on the scorecard's 34 items, using evidence from the 194th General Court (2025 to 2026): recorded votes first, then public statements, then bill sponsorship. Every legislator gets two numbers: the score on the items with evidence, and the floor, what it becomes if every plank with no evidence at all scored 0.
Stronger evidence, lower scores: nobody clears the fund line.
On sponsorship alone, five of the eight scored at or above 70. Adding votes and statements moved all eight into the WATCH band (50 to 69), two of them exactly on the 50 line. The new evidence is mostly opposition evidence on the two most discriminating items, nuclear (6.3) and immigration enforcement (8.2), and it filled blanks with zeros and a door-open 0.5 instead of leaving them unscored. This is still a pre-screen, not a funding decision: the questionnaire has not been answered, and the bands are arithmetic only.
The scores
Ranked by updated score. Read the ranking together with coverage and floor: a high score on thin evidence is not the same as a high score on wide evidence.
| Legislator | Score | Band* | Floor | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Michael J. Barrett Senate, 3rd Middlesex, D · Score unchanged, no new evidence scored against him |
66.7 | WATCH* | 16.7 | 2 of 8 planks · 4 of 34 items |
James B. Eldridge Senate, Middlesex & Worcester, D · Was 75.0 on sponsorship alone |
62.5 | WATCH* | 46.9 | 6 of 8 planks · 12 of 34 items |
Patricia D. Jehlen Senate, 2nd Middlesex, D · Was 75.0 on sponsorship alone |
60.0 | WATCH* RETIRING | 37.5 | 5 of 8 planks · 5 of 34 items |
Erika Uyterhoeven House, 27th Middlesex, D · Senator-elect, 2nd Middlesex, Jan 2027 · Was 83.3, the biggest fall · Highest floor in the table |
59.5 | WATCH* | 52.1 | 7 of 8 planks · 11 of 34 items |
Mike Connolly House, 26th Middlesex, D · Was 75.0 on sponsorship alone |
57.1 | WATCH* | 50.0 | 7 of 8 planks · 10 of 34 items |
Joanne M. Comerford Senate, Hampshire, Franklin & Worcester, D · Was 76.7 on sponsorship alone |
54.8 | WATCH* | 47.9 | 7 of 8 planks · 10 of 34 items |
Rebecca L. Rausch Senate, Norfolk, Worcester & Middlesex, D · Same number, more coverage than before |
50.0 | WATCH* ON THE LINE | 18.8 | 3 of 8 planks · 3 of 34 items |
Ryan C. Fattman Senate, Worcester & Hampden, R · Score unchanged · The only Plank 8 match in this table |
50.0 | WATCH* ON THE LINE | 6.3 | 1 of 8 planks · 1 of 34 items |
* Band is arithmetic only. On this evidence alone, no band is a funding recommendation: coverage is 1 to 7 of 8 planks, and the questionnaire has not been answered. Status after the November 3, 2026 election is as reported November 8, 2026; final certified results were not yet published.
Score vs. floor
The shaded range is the uncertainty the questionnaire still has to resolve. The ranges narrowed for Comerford, Uyterhoeven, and Connolly because the statement evidence replaced uncertainty with zeros.
How a score is built
A bill is treated as evidence of support for the item it addresses. A bill matching only part of an item scores 0.5 for that item. Blank means no evidence was found, and blanks are never counted as zero.
Every one of the 34 items gets 1, 0.5, 0, or stays blank.
A plank score (0 to 100) is the average of that plank's scored items. A plank with no scored items has no score.
The overall score averages the planks that have a score, each weighted equally at 12.5%.
The floor is the overall if every wholly unscored plank scored 0. The true score lies between floor and the score on the evidence in hand. Only the questionnaire resolves it.
Funding bands, applied here as arithmetic only: 70+ FUND & ENDORSE* · 50 to 69 WATCH* · Below 50 DO NOT FUND. Item 6.5, new in this update, opposes large-scale wind and supports alternative energy on all-in cost terms (turbines plus backup generation, transmission, and land). No evidence on 6.5 exists for any of the eight yet, so all eight are blank on it and no score changed when it was added.
What this update found
The biggest fall: Uyterhoeven, 83.3 to 59.5
On sponsorship alone she ranked first on the thinnest evidence in the table, 3 items. Statements widened her coverage to 11 items and filled Plank 8 with a zero and Plank 6 with a door-open 0.5: she co-sponsored Amendment 31 to strike the nuclear moratorium repeal from the House energy bill, and her platform backs the PROTECT Act, which limits state cooperation with ICE, the opposite of item 8.2. The score fell because the evidence got better, not worse.
The two roll calls, handled carefully
The House energy bill (H.5175, passed 128 to 27 on Feb 26, 2026) repealed Chapter 503, the 1982 law requiring a statewide vote before any new nuclear plant. Connolly and Uyterhoeven voted No, and both said the reason was the bill's roughly $1 billion cut to Mass Save, not the nuclear section, so their votes were not scored on nuclear. Their co-sponsorship of the amendment to strike the repeal itself is what scored. The Senate bill (passed 32 to 8 on Jul 1, 2026) kept the moratorium, and no senator's reason is on record, so none of the Senate votes were scored on the item either. A vote on a 113-page omnibus bill cannot be read as a vote on one section.
Barrett's nuclear position is still unknown
No statement on nuclear power, small modular reactors, or Chapter 503 was found for Sen. Barrett, despite his central role as the Senate energy chair who shaped the Senate text and led it through conference. He stays top of the table at 66.7 on the strength of Plank 1, and his missing Plank 6 position is the biggest open question the research left. Plank 8 is now the least-supported plank in the State House, and Plank 6 is second.
What would change these scores
The questionnaire. Every candidate gets direct questions on all 34 items, including the federal-only issues where a state record barely exists. A legislator who answers it can move from WATCH to funded, or fall out of contention, on their own words. Until then, these numbers are a pre-screen that also serves a second purpose: showing primary voters, in minutes, where the candidates they have never heard of actually stand.
How the scorecard is used
Qualifiers at 70 or above are endorsed and funded $500 each, highest score first, until funds run out. Right now there are no qualifiers. The FAQ tab explains the endorsement rules and the rest of the plan.