Federal level · Current term
South Dakota
South Dakota’s congressional delegation
- statements analyzed
- 6,243
- officials covered
- 3
- last updated
- Oct 28, 2026
What members of Congress say in public
Floor speeches, press releases, newsletters and posts on X
We collect these statements and label each one as a personal attack, a criticism of policy, credit claiming, an appeal to bipartisanship or plain policy talk. The rules are the same for every member, so the numbers compare across members, parties and states.
What each party owns
This comparison needs both parties.
Each bar is the share of Democrats’ policy statements that name an area minus the share of Republicans’ that do, in percentage points, among 3 members of South Dakota’s congressional delegation in the current term. Bars to the right are areas Democrats name more often; bars to the left, areas Republicans name more often. The AI model tags each policy statement with any of the Congressional Research Service’s 25 policy areas. The figures beside each bar are both parties’ shares.
This comparison needs both parties. It is on the United States dashboard.
Who stands out
The five highest rates on four kinds of statement among 3 members of South Dakota’s congressional delegation. An official needs at least 50 statements in the current term to be ranked.
An AI model labels every statement. An official’s rate is the share of their statements that carry a label.
Most personal attacks
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
- 1John ThuneRU.S. Senate · South Dakota0.6%
- 2Dusty JohnsonRU.S. House · SD at-large0.5%
- 3Mike RoundsRU.S. Senate · South Dakota0.3%
Most credit claiming
Claims credit for passing legislation, securing funding or grants, or other accomplishments in office.
- 1Dusty JohnsonRU.S. House · SD at-large46%
- 2Mike RoundsRU.S. Senate · South Dakota29%
- 3John ThuneRU.S. Senate · South Dakota16%
Most bipartisan language
Emphasises working across the aisle, compromise or common ground between the parties.
- 1John ThuneRU.S. Senate · South Dakota11%
- 2Dusty JohnsonRU.S. House · SD at-large9.9%
- 3Mike RoundsRU.S. Senate · South Dakota7.7%
Most policy-focused
Discusses a specific public policy or policy area (health care, taxes, defense, …).
- 1Dusty JohnsonRU.S. House · SD at-large78%
- 2Mike RoundsRU.S. Senate · South Dakota65%
- 3John ThuneRU.S. Senate · South Dakota30%
Each official’s rates are on their profile and in the bulk file.
Party comparison
Republicans talk about policy in 43% of statements; 0.5% attack opponents personally and 2.1% use extreme labels. The most-discussed policy area is Armed Forces and National Security (27% of policy statements).
Each bar is the share of a party’s statements that carry a label, pooled across 3 members of South Dakota’s congressional delegation in the current term. Officials who post more count more. A statement can carry several labels, so a party’s shares can sum to more than 100%.
Statements by label and party
Share of each party’s statements, the current term
- Personal attacks
- Policy criticism
- Policy discussion
- Bipartisanship
- Credit claiming
- Extreme labels
Show the data
| Measure | Republicans |
|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 0.5% |
| Policy criticism | 12% |
| Policy discussion | 43% |
| Bipartisanship | 11% |
| Credit claiming | 22% |
| Extreme labels | 2.1% |
The measures
Personal attacks. Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Policy criticism. Objects to a specific policy, law or court ruling with fact-based arguments, without personal attacks or emotional appeals.
Policy discussion. Discusses a specific public policy or policy area (health care, taxes, defense, …).
Bipartisanship. Emphasises working across the aisle, compromise or common ground between the parties.
Credit claiming. Claims credit for passing legislation, securing funding or grants, or other accomplishments in office.
Extreme labels. Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”.
Personal attacks by venue
Share of statements by 3 members of South Dakota’s congressional delegation, the current term
Republicans’ personal-attack rate runs from 0.1% of their posts on X to 2.1% of their press releases.
Show the data
| Venue | Republicans: personal attacks | Republicans: statements |
|---|---|---|
| Posts on X | 0.1% | 2541 |
| Press releases | 2.1% | 514 |
| Newsletters | 0.6% | 176 |
| Floor speeches | 0.6% | 3012 |
Notes
Each point is the share of a party’s statements in one venue that the AI model labelled a personal attack, pooled across members. A line joins each party’s four venues. A statement counts once and carries the label if any of its passages does.
Posts on X are 41% of the 6,243 statements here, so the pooled rates elsewhere on this page sit closest to the X points.
A party needs 50 statements in a venue before its point is drawn.
Polarization
The median Republican scores +0.90 on the CSIP scale.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign contributions and the text of their statements. Negative scores are to the left and positive scores to the right. The gap is the distance between the two parties’ medians.
CSIP scores by party
← More liberal · 0 · More conservative →
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median |
|---|---|---|
| Republicans | 3 | +0.9 |
Gap between the party medians
By election cycle
Not enough Congresses with scored members of both parties to draw a trend.
Notes
Each dot is one official, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, darker further from 0. Overlapping dots form darker patches where officials cluster. The rule in each row marks the party median.
Each official’s score is on their profile, and the full table is in Downloads.
Trends in what politicians say
Bipartisan language by Republicans moved most, from 13% of statements in Jan–Mar ’25 to 9.9% in Jul–Sep ’26.
Each strip is one label, with a row per party and a cell per month. Cells are shaded against the row’s own peak, and the peak and latest values are printed at the right. The sentence above each strip compares the first three complete months of the window with the last three. Party-months with fewer than 10 statements are hatched and excluded.
Monthly rates by party
Members of Congress, the current term · each row shaded against its own peak
Personal attacks
From Jan–Mar ’25 to Jul–Sep ’26, Republicans held steady (0.6% to 0.5%).
Show the data
| Column | Republicans |
|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 0.5% |
| Feb ’25 | 1.3% |
| Mar ’25 | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 0.3% |
| May ’25 | 0.3% |
| Jun ’25 | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 0.2% |
| Aug ’25 | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 0.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 0.9% |
| Nov ’25 | 1.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 0.3% |
| Jan ’26 | 0.5% |
| Feb ’26 | 0.8% |
| Mar ’26 | 1.2% |
| Apr ’26 | 0.7% |
| May ’26 | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 1.2% |
| Jul ’26 | 0.5% |
| Aug ’26 | 1.1% |
| Sep ’26 | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 0.0% |
Extreme labels
From Jan–Mar ’25 to Jul–Sep ’26, Republicans held steady (1.4% to 1.4%).
Show the data
| Column | Republicans |
|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 1.6% |
| Feb ’25 | 1.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 1.6% |
| Apr ’25 | 0.9% |
| May ’25 | 0.5% |
| Jun ’25 | 1.3% |
| Jul ’25 | 0.5% |
| Aug ’25 | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 4.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 9.3% |
| Nov ’25 | 3.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 0.9% |
| Jan ’26 | 0.5% |
| Feb ’26 | 0.4% |
| Mar ’26 | 3.5% |
| Apr ’26 | 2.9% |
| May ’26 | 3.1% |
| Jun ’26 | 2.8% |
| Jul ’26 | 2.4% |
| Aug ’26 | 0.5% |
| Sep ’26 | 1.3% |
| Oct ’26 | 0.0% |
Bipartisanship
From Jan–Mar ’25 to Jul–Sep ’26, Republicans fell from 13% to 9.9%.
Show the data
| Column | Republicans |
|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 16.6% |
| Feb ’25 | 13.6% |
| Mar ’25 | 9.8% |
| Apr ’25 | 8.5% |
| May ’25 | 5.8% |
| Jun ’25 | 4.6% |
| Jul ’25 | 8.5% |
| Aug ’25 | 9.3% |
| Sep ’25 | 16.7% |
| Oct ’25 | 18.3% |
| Nov ’25 | 11.8% |
| Dec ’25 | 7.9% |
| Jan ’26 | 7.4% |
| Feb ’26 | 12.7% |
| Mar ’26 | 14.1% |
| Apr ’26 | 8.6% |
| May ’26 | 8.7% |
| Jun ’26 | 7.6% |
| Jul ’26 | 14.3% |
| Aug ’26 | 9.3% |
| Sep ’26 | 6.2% |
| Oct ’26 | 2.0% |
Policy discussion
From Jan–Mar ’25 to Jul–Sep ’26, Republicans held steady (44% to 41%).
Show the data
| Column | Republicans |
|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 38.8% |
| Feb ’25 | 51.6% |
| Mar ’25 | 42.4% |
| Apr ’25 | 37.2% |
| May ’25 | 45.3% |
| Jun ’25 | 38.2% |
| Jul ’25 | 32.6% |
| Aug ’25 | 50.8% |
| Sep ’25 | 39.5% |
| Oct ’25 | 41.1% |
| Nov ’25 | 34.5% |
| Dec ’25 | 39.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 54.7% |
| Feb ’26 | 55.7% |
| Mar ’26 | 48.7% |
| Apr ’26 | 53.8% |
| May ’26 | 54.6% |
| Jun ’26 | 35.5% |
| Jul ’26 | 46.7% |
| Aug ’26 | 37.7% |
| Sep ’26 | 39.4% |
| Oct ’26 | 51.0% |
Notes
Oct ’26 is incomplete (data through Oct 28, 2026). It is drawn but excluded from every comparison.
No party-month here has fewer than ten statements.
Personal attacks by month
Members of Congress, Jan 2025 to Oct 2026 · Oct ’26 incomplete
Republicans’ personal attacks peaked in Feb 2025, at 1.3% of statements, the month after the inauguration. In Sep 2026, the last complete month, the rates were 0.0% for Republicans.
Show the data
| Date | Republicans |
|---|---|
| Oct 2026 | 0.0% |
| Sep 2026 | 0.0% |
| Aug 2026 | 1.1% |
| Jul 2026 | 0.5% |
| Jun 2026 | 1.2% |
| May 2026 | 0.0% |
| Apr 2026 | 0.7% |
| Mar 2026 | 1.2% |
| Feb 2026 | 0.8% |
| Jan 2026 | 0.5% |
| Dec 2025 | 0.3% |
| Nov 2025 | 1.0% |
| Oct 2025 | 0.9% |
| Sep 2025 | 0.3% |
| Aug 2025 | 0.0% |
| Jul 2025 | 0.2% |
| Jun 2025 | 0.0% |
| May 2025 | 0.3% |
| Apr 2025 | 0.3% |
| Mar 2025 | 0.0% |
| Feb 2025 | 1.3% |
| Jan 2025 | 0.5% |
- 1Jan 20, 2025 Inauguration · calendar
- 2Apr 13, 2025 Arson at the Pennsylvania governor’s residence · lab violence record
- 3Jun 14, 2025 Two Minnesota legislators and their spouses shot at their homes · lab violence record
- 4Sep 10, 2025 Charlie Kirk shot in Orem, Utah · lab violence record
Notes
Each line is the monthly share of a party’s statements that the AI model labelled a personal attack, pooled across officials. The numbered rules mark acts of political violence from the lab’s record and fixed dates on the political calendar. They date events and make no claim about cause.
Party-months with fewer than 10 statements are omitted and break the line. Oct ’26 is incomplete; it is drawn but never counted as a peak.
Policy topics
Energy led in Sep ’26, named in 26% of policy statements. Armed Forces and National Security rose most from Aug ’26 (+9.3 pts); Agriculture and Food fell most (−23 pts).
The AI model tags each policy statement with any of 25 policy areas, so shares can sum to more than 100%. A share is the percentage of a month’s policy statements by members of Congress that name the area. The lists compare the last two complete months, with changes in percentage points. A month needs at least ten policy statements to be compared.
Most discussed, Sep ’26
89 policy statements; change since Aug ’26 in grey
- Energy26% +1.2 pts
- Agriculture and Food25% −23 pts
- Government Operations and Politics25% +8.8 pts
- Commerce22% +8.0 pts
- Armed Forces and National Security18% +9.3 pts
Rising
Up most since Aug ’26
- Armed Forces and National Security+9.3 pts
- Government Operations and Politics+8.8 pts
- Commerce+8.0 pts
Falling
Down most since Aug ’26
- Agriculture and Food−23 pts
- Emergency Management−5.0 pts
- Foreign Trade and International Finance−5.0 pts
States
The state maps are on the United States dashboard.
The left map is the share of statements by each state’s congressional delegation that the AI model labelled a personal attack, the current term (members of Congress, by the state they represent). The right map is the lab’s survey estimate of affective polarization in each state: residents’ rating of their own party minus their rating of the other, on a 0–100 thermometer. Each state is a square of the same size, shaded by quintile; darker is higher.
The two maps are on the United States dashboard.
Challengers and incumbents
Challengers post personal attacks more often than the incumbents they face. On posts on X since Oct 1, 2025, the median challenger’s rate is 2.9% and the median incumbent’s 0.2%; 1 of 1 challengers post personal attacks more often than the incumbent they face and 0 less often, across 1 House and Senate races with both sides measured. The widest Senate gap is in South Dakota, 2.7 points.
Every 2026 House and Senate race with an incumbent running and at least one challenger. A candidate’s rate is the share of their posts on X that the AI model labelled a personal attack. Both sides are measured over the same months, since Oct 1, 2025, and incumbents’ press releases, newsletters and floor speeches are excluded. Candidates with fewer than 10 posts are left out.
Incumbents and challengers
Personal attacks, share of posts on X · 1 incumbents, 1 challengers · rates above 20% are drawn at the edge
Show the data
| Race | Candidate | Party | Status | Posts on X | Personal attacks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Dakota Senate | Mike Rounds | Republicans | Incumbent | 440 | 0.2% |
| South Dakota Senate | Julian Beaudion | Democrats | Challenger | 206 | 2.9% |
Both are measured on posts on X since Oct 1, 2025.
The Senate races, widest gap first
Each incumbent (outlined) and the challenger whose rate differs most, personal attacks as a share of posts on X
Mike Rounds (R), 440 posts · Julian Beaudion (D), 206 posts
Show the data
| Race | Incumbent | Rate | Posts | Challenger | Rate | Posts | Gap (points) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Dakota Senate | Mike Rounds (Republican) | 0.2% | 440 | Julian Beaudion (Democrat) | 2.9% | 206 | +2.7 |