Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security · Source
30%
of statements discuss policy, the lowest of 52 Senate Republicans
30% of 4,209 statements discuss policy (1,255 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 70%. Ranks 52nd of 52, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Thune’s Congressional Record speeches, press releases, posts on X and newsletters and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Republicans. 67% of the 58 bills Thune sponsored got out of committee, the highest of 51 Senate Republicans. The policy areas Thune talks about and legislates on agree at 0.40 on a 0–1 scale, the lowest of 52 Senate Republicans.
The measures on which Thune sits furthest from the middle of Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy discussion
30%
Senate Republicans average 70% · ranks 52nd of 52
Out of committee
67%
Senate Republicans average 22% · ranks 1st of 51
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.40
Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 52nd of 52
Credit claiming
16%
Senate Republicans average 36% · ranks 51st of 52
Attendance
99.8%
Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 4th of 53 · 915 roll calls
CSIP ideology
+0.92
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01
Peer group: Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Thune, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Thune is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Thune says
Thune attacks opponents personally about as often as the median Senate Republican. Personal attacks in 0.6% of 4,209 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 31st of 52.
An AI model reads each of Thune’s 4,209 statements in the 119th Congress (2,920 Congressional Record speeches, 1,054 posts on X, 196 press releases, 39 newsletters) 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Thune
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,255 statements
30%
70%
52nd of 52
Credit claiming658 statements
16%
36%
51st of 52
Bipartisanship481 statements
11%
13%
26th of 52
Policy criticism447 statements
11%
17%
44th of 52
Personal attacks26 statements
1%
2%
31st of 52
Show the data
| Row | Thune | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 30% | 70% |
| Credit claiming | 16% | 36% |
| Bipartisanship | 11% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 11% | 17% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
4,209
statements classified
2,920 Congressional Record speeches, 1,054 posts on X, 196 press releases, 39 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| Congressional Record speeches | 2,920 |
| posts on X | 1,054 |
| press releases | 196 |
| newsletters | 39 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Thune; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Thune does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Thune used extreme labels in 2.8% of statements, close to the peer average. 117 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.
- “far left”66
- “radical”25
- “extreme”13
- “communist”3
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats66
- far left11
- far-left6
- Democrat Party5
- Democrat4
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 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 255 | 0.4% | 15.3% | 27.8% | 18.8% | 16.1% | 1.6% |
| Feb ’25 | 189 | 1.6% | 11.6% | 36.5% | 10.6% | 16.4% | 1.1% |
| Mar ’25 | 242 | 0.0% | 9.5% | 27.3% | 8.3% | 11.6% | 1.7% |
| Apr ’25 | 196 | 0.5% | 8.2% | 22.4% | 7.1% | 16.3% | 1.5% |
| May ’25 | 211 | 0.5% | 9.0% | 29.4% | 7.6% | 8.1% | 0.9% |
| Jun ’25 | 269 | 0.0% | 8.9% | 29.0% | 5.2% | 14.9% | 0.7% |
| Jul ’25 | 338 | 0.3% | 5.6% | 19.5% | 8.6% | 12.4% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 62 | 0.0% | 3.2% | 30.6% | 12.9% | 22.6% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 203 | 0.5% | 12.3% | 25.1% | 17.7% | 12.8% | 6.4% |
| Oct ’25 | 263 | 1.1% | 19.8% | 29.7% | 21.3% | 8.4% | 12.6% |
| Nov ’25 | 140 | 0.0% | 12.1% | 19.3% | 12.9% | 5.0% | 4.3% |
| Dec ’25 | 223 | 0.4% | 7.2% | 20.2% | 6.7% | 13.5% | 0.9% |
| Jan ’26 | 129 | 0.8% | 10.8% | 39.5% | 10.1% | 34.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 139 | 1.4% | 15.8% | 48.2% | 19.4% | 28.8% | 0.7% |
| Mar ’26 | 300 | 1.7% | 20.7% | 38.3% | 15.0% | 11.0% | 5.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 171 | 1.2% | 8.2% | 36.3% | 12.9% | 24.6% | 4.7% |
| May ’26 | 113 | 0.0% | 10.6% | 41.6% | 10.6% | 21.2% | 4.4% |
| Jun ’26 | 274 | 1.1% | 9.8% | 29.9% | 8.4% | 20.8% | 2.9% |
| Jul ’26 | 152 | 0.7% | 5.3% | 37.5% | 16.4% | 16.4% | 3.3% |
| Aug ’26 | 137 | 0.0% | 3.6% | 26.3% | 6.6% | 18.3% | 0.7% |
| Sep ’26 | 186 | 0.0% | 4.8% | 29.6% | 5.9% | 18.8% | 1.6% |
| Oct ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 41.2% | 0.0% | 17.6% | 0.0% |
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 119th Congress, 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%.
In Thune’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
Mr. President, Americans tend to trust Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to national security. And, boy oh boy, do Democrats seem determined to demonstrate why that is the case. Yesterday afternoon, Democrats voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual bill that auth…
Jul 15, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; Government Operations and Politics; Immigration; Transportation and Public Works; target: Democrats · Source
Extreme label
Thune: Today’s Democrat Party Is the Proud Home of Socialism Click here to watch the video. WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor: Thune’s remarks below (as delivered): “Mr. President, there’s no doubt that the Democra…
Sep 23, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Education; Immigration; Law; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Health; extreme label “radical, communist” aimed at Democratic Socialists · 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.
Congressional Record
Mr. President, Americans tend to trust Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to national security. And, boy oh boy, do Democrats seem determined to demonstrate why that is the case. Yesterday afternoon, Democrats voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual bill that authorizes spending for our Nation's defense. Their ostensible excuse was the conflict in Iran. Well, in case they were oper…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Armed Forces and National Security · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · Transportation and Public Works · target: DemocratsSource
Press releases
Thune: Republicans Invest in Border Security, Democrats Undermine Law Enforcement “[W]hen all the political statements have been made, we will pass the underlying bill and be one step closer to funding border security and immigration law enforcement for the next three years.” Click here to watch the video. WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today delivered the following remarks on the Senat…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · target: DemocratsSource
Press releases
Thune: Republicans Invest in Border Security, Democrats Undermine Law Enforcement Click here to watch the video. WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor: Thune’s remarks below (as delivered): “Mr. President, I expect there will be a lot of amendments today on a lot of topics. “So I wanted to take just a minute to focus in on the essence o…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · target: DemocratsSource
Press releases
Thune to Democrats: Enforcing the Law Isn’t A Choice Click here to watch the video. WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor: Thune’s remarks below (as delivered): “Mr. President, enforcing our nation’s laws is not optional. “Securing our borders isn’t optional. “And supporting the men and women who do this important work – funding law enf…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · Armed Forces and National Security · extreme label “far left” aimed at Democrat Party · target: Democrat PartySource
Congressional Record
Mr. President, if it were up to Republicans, we would have finished the appropriations process months ago. We made a lot of progress on restoring the appropriations process this past year. We had, for the first time in years, actually moved 11 of the 12 appropriations bills across the finish line under regular order, something that literally hadn't been done in years. And I think if you go back to when the last time…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Emergency Management · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · Armed Forces and National SecuritySource
All 4,209 statements
Newest first, the 119th Congress
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: 2,920 Congressional Record speeches, 1,054 posts on X, 196 press releases, 39 newsletters.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Thune talks about most: 36% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.40 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 52nd of 52).
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 Thune talks about. The bills Thune sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Thune talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%59%
Thune
Peers
Government Operations and Politics455 statements
36%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security420 statements
33%
25%
Economics and Public Finance382 statements
30%
17%
Taxation268 statements
21%
7%
Immigration236 statements
19%
10%
Show the data
| Row | Thune | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 36% | 19% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 33% | 25% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 30% | 17% |
| Taxation | 21% | 7% |
| Immigration | 19% | 10% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Thune’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate Republicans. 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 59%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 36% | 19% | 54% | 11% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 33% | 25% | 0% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 30% | 17% | 0% | 1% |
| Taxation | 21% | 7% | 6% | 7% |
| Immigration | 19% | 10% | 0% | 4% |
0.40
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 52nd of 52.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Thune legislates on exactly the areas Thune 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 Thune sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Thune sits at +0.92 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 54% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.91 to +0.93, which understates the uncertainty; from 7,697 donors and 5,012 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”.
+0.92
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.91 to +0.93. From 7,697 donors and 5,012 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Thune, 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 Thune’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 Thune sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Republicans51 · median +1.0
All Senate98 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Thune |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Republicans | 51 | +1.0 | 45% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 71% |
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 Thune 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 Thune.
Money
Thune raised $4.7M in the 2026 cycle, above the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 17% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 22% of itemized individual money came from South Dakota.
Campaign money from Federal Election Commission 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.
$4.7M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 1,083 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)27 squares$1.3M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)6 squares$264.3K
- PACs and other committees18 squares$849.0K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)49 squares$2.3M
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $1.3M | 27.0% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $264.3K | 5.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $849.0K | 18.1% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $2.3M | 49.2% |
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. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $3.1M |
| 2022 cycle | $7.5M |
| 2024 cycle | $4.2M |
| 2026 cycle | $4.7M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 22% came from South Dakota.
- South Dakota$280.7K
- California$133.4K
- Iowa$87.1K
- Florida$75.8K
- New York$71.8K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Republicans’ median.
0%60%
Thune
Median
2026
17%
17%
2024
18%
17%
2022
10%
17%
2020
24%
17%
Show the data
| Row | Thune | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 17% | 17% |
| 2024 cycle | 18% | 17% |
| 2022 cycle | 10% | 17% |
| 2020 cycle | 24% | 17% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| South Dakota | $280.7K |
| California | $133.4K |
| Iowa | $87.1K |
| Florida | $75.8K |
| New York | $71.8K |
| Virginia | $62.2K |
| Texas | $59.9K |
| Colorado | $54.3K |
| North Carolina | $38.6K |
| Illinois | $38.3K |
| Michigan | $23.7K |
| Indiana | $22.0K |
| District of Columbia | $21.0K |
| Connecticut | $20.4K |
| Arkansas | $20.3K |
| Georgia | $19.7K |
| Wisconsin | $19.1K |
| Minnesota | $18.5K |
| Louisiana | $18.0K |
| Nevada | $16.8K |
| Ohio | $14.3K |
| Tennessee | $12.2K |
| New Jersey | $12.1K |
| Utah | $12.0K |
| Arizona | $11.7K |
| Massachusetts | $11.3K |
| Nebraska | $10.5K |
| Oklahoma | $9,718 |
| Pennsylvania | $8,950 |
| Delaware | $8,100 |
| Maryland | $7,459 |
| Washington | $7,196 |
| Kansas | $7,089 |
| Alabama | $7,008 |
| Rhode Island | $4,250 |
| West Virginia | $3,898 |
| Montana | $3,250 |
| Wyoming | $3,150 |
| Missouri | $3,125 |
| Oregon | $3,085 |
| South Carolina | $3,062 |
| North Dakota | $1,900 |
| New Mexico | $1,831 |
| New Hampshire | $1,065 |
| Mississippi | $1,000 |
| Hawaii | $799 |
| Alaska | $200 |
| Maine | $200 |
| Idaho | $200 |
| Kentucky | $200 |
| Vermont | No data |
1,083
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
22%
from South Dakota
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 South Dakota. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.4% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 2.5% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 2.3% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 3.4% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 5.3% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 6.1% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 15% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 56% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 9.4% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 0.0% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Thune’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Thune’s own score is +0.92.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$292.6K 567 donors
- CEO$133.8K 49 donors
- EXECUTIVE$49.4K 18 donors
- ATTORNEY$47.5K 24 donors
- HOMEMAKER$31.9K 22 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (MORPAC)$21.3K
- SAMMONS ENTERPRISES INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$14.0K
- AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$13.0K
- BLACK & VEATCH POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (BLACK & VEATCH PAC)$10.0K
- CARDINAL HEALTH INC. PAC$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- DAVITA$44.5K 13 donors
- WELLMARK BCBS$36.8K 11 donors
- DAVITA INC.$20.5K 4 donors
- WELLMARK$12.0K 14 donors
- WINGED KEEL GROUP$11.5K 8 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Thune voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 97.7% of party-line votes and missed 0.1% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Thune voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 19 times.
915 roll calls Thune could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Republicans. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Thune voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
19
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 97.7%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 46th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Thune, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Thune
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.8%
97.1%
4th of 53
Party unity
97.7%
98.4%
46th of 53
Show the data
| Row | Thune | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.8% | 97.1% |
| Party unity | 97.7% | 98.4% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2026 | S. 4668 A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 24, 2026 | H.Con.Res. 89 A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. On the Concurrent Resolution | Nay | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Aug 8, 2026 | H.R. 6500 An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Aug 7, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jul 30, 2026 | S.Res. 817 An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar. On the Resolution | Yea | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Thune most often
- Deb FischerR905 shared votes98%
- Pete RickettsR905 shared votes98%
- John BoozmanR900 shared votes98%
- Markwayne MullinR683 shared votes98%
- Tom CottonR900 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Thune least often
- Ed MarkeyD907 shared votes5.3%
- Bernie SandersI851 shared votes5.4%
- Elizabeth WarrenD900 shared votes5.6%
- Christopher MurphyD889 shared votes6.1%
- Chris Van HollenD900 shared votes6.8%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Legislation
Thune sponsored 58 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 69 others. 67% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 1st of 51).
The bills Thune sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, 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 119th Congress
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 58 | 57 | 37 | 4 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 69 | 66 | 27 | 2 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Thune sponsored, ochre blocks bills Thune cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
67%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 1st of 51.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Thune, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Mike Rounds17
- Amy Klobuchar12
- Chuck Schumer12
- Cynthia Lummis9
- Tina Smith9
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 Thune’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S.Res. 928 | A resolution to authorize testimony, document production, and representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of United States v. Terry. | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5178) Sep 29, 2026 |
| S.Res. 913 | A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026 |
| S.Res. 897 | A resolution honoring the life, service, and legacy of the Honorable Jon Llewellyn Kyl, former Senator for the State of Arizona. | Cosponsor | Sep 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4958; text: CR S4951-4952) Sep 23, 2026 |
| S. 5359 | Pennington County Land Conveyance Act | Sponsor | Aug 7, 2026 | In committee | Public Lands and Natural Resources | Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5289 | Right to Worship Act | Cosponsor | Aug 6, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Aug 6, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 48 times in 90 days. Thune’s official site had 32 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Thune posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Thune’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 Thune posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 32
pages crawled
48changes 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
- XSenJohnThune
- FacebookLeaderJohnThune
- Instagramsenjohnthune
- YouTubejohnthune
- Emailno-reply@thune.senate.gov
Images Thune posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A group of people sit around a conference table in a meeting room. There is text on a whiteboard and on papers, but it is not legible.View post 
A man standing in a meeting room shakes hands with a seated attendee while several people sit around tables. The room has a television, windows with blinds, an American flag, and a plant. There is text visible on a wall notice.View post 
Five men stand inside an industrial workshop or warehouse, looking toward something off camera. Machinery, shelving, materials, and a forklift are visible in the background. There is some text on clothing and equipment.View post 
Three men stand around a long metal beam in a workshop or industrial building. One man is behind the beam, while the other two face him. There is small text on clothing and equipment.View post 
Five men stand together for a group photo inside a large industrial workshop or factory. Machinery, metal materials, and overhead lights are visible in the background. There is some text on clothing or equipment.View post
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 Thune is most unusual among Senate Republicans, 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
- T000250
- Bioguide
- T000250
- FEC candidate ids
- H6SD00085, S2SD00068
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 (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
- Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
- Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; 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.
- 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