Reposted byTina Smith
DOKOUPIL: Republicans says what you're really fighting for is taxpayer dollars for illegal aliens. I know that's not strictly true--
ELIZABETH WARREN: Excuse me, not strictly true? It is a flat out lie!
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Minnesota
Tina Smith
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 851
Yes26%
No69%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align98%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Tina Smith
U.S. SenatorDemocratMinnesota
SoupScore
Tina's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 42 sponsored · 301 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
We're not asking for the moon here. We’re trying to help Americans pay for their health insurance.
Reposted byTina Smith
“By the way, there’s a lot of Republicans in Minnesota,” Sen. Tina Smith, whose state is targeted for cuts, told POLITICO. “So they’re trying to retaliate against me .. and the result is all Minnesotans’ utility bills go up? .. That’s so stupid.”
@politico.com
www.politico.com/news/2025/10...
TYPING SOMETHING IN ALL CAPS STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.
A sixty-year-old couple in Mankato making $89,000 combined will pay an EXTRA $1500 every single month just to get health insurance if we don’t get a shutdown deal.
That’s why we’re fighting so hard.
Health insurance rates aren’t released in December, they’re released this month. We have to deal with this now or a lot more people are going to be priced out of health insurance.
They’re bullying Minnesotans because I had the AUDACITY to ask to negotiate a deal to help my constituents afford to live in a broken health care system.
Reposted byTina Smith
Minnesota: Split bipartisan legislature.
Kept the government open. Invested in improving lives. Responsible budget cuts.
Washington: Republicans control House, Senate, Oval Office.
Government shutdown. Driving up health care costs by thousands. Skyrocketing national debt.
Reposted byTina Smith
I was sent this by a Georgian this morning. 2025 premiums vs 2026 premiums for someone making $65k a year.
Republicans in Washington did this.
This is what I'm fighting to stop. This is what’s at stake in this shutdown fight.
Archie and I are wishing everyone observing Yom Kippur this year an easy and meaningful fast. G’mar Chatimah Tovah.
The government is shut down. For those just tuning in, here’s what happened:
1) We said we needed to help Americans pay their health insurance bills.
2) Republicans hated the idea and stonewalled us.
3) They shut down the government (which they control all chambers of) without negotiating.
All because we wanted to help Americans pay their health care costs in a broken system that is about to get even more expensive.
So: what the hell is going on?
Showing up to work to avoid a shutdown is apparently a minimum threshold Republicans can’t be bothered to meet.
Reposted byTina Smith
Republicans clearly flunked civics in high school.
Undocumented immigrants CAN'T get Medicare, Medicaid, or healthcare tax credits. It’s against the law.
These guys lie because the facts are not on their side.
Undocumented immigrants aren’t even *allowed* to access Medicare, Medicaid or ACA credits.
Republicans like Randy are going to spike your health insurance premiums, but they REALLY want you to blame an immigrant instead.
At least 21,000,000 Americans will see their premiums increase under Republicans’ budget.
This is a lie (and he knows it, but how else you gonna get on CNN every day)
Their playbook for everything is to throw in the words 'illegal immigrants' when they know they’re losing to distract Americans from the fact they're screwing YOU over.
YOUR premiums could skyrocket; it’s because of Republicans.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History851 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
851 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hassan Amdt. No. 5535) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Ossoff Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 5514) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 5512) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Tillis Amdt. No. 5452) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (15-84) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Schumer motion to commit S.2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-06-03 | S. 2 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2026-06-03 | S.J. Res. 188 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-06-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-06-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-05-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 185 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-38) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-38) |
| 2026-05-18 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-43) |
| 2026-05-14 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 141 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-50) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 132 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-52) |
| 2026-05-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-05-13 | S. Res. 526 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 163 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.