Can't wait to hear the political spin they're going to put on kicking 13 million people off their health insurance. To think this is their "moderate" proposal would be laughable if it wasn't so harmful.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Republican|Mississippi
Cindy Hyde-Smith
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 851
Yes72%
No26%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align99%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Cindy Hyde-Smith
U.S. SenatorRepublicanMississippi
SoupScore
Cindy's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 39 sponsored · 193 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Reposted byTina Smith
Make no mistake: Congressional Republicans are intent on kicking hardworking Americans off their health insurance so their billionaire friends can pay less in taxes.
These contracts are often designed to fail and have left Minnesotans financially ruined with no help.
Late Friday, the CFPB quietly gutted the protections I fought to put in place for families exploited by predatory contracts for deed.
Vought called it a “compliance burden” — I’d like to know how letting unscrupulous sellers exploit people just trying to buy their own home is a “compliance burden.”
Putting a FedEx executive in charge of its competitor, the Postal Service, is exactly the kind of corrupt move we’ve come to expect from this Administration.
I was glad DeJoy left, but this guy seems hand-picked to gut USPS.
Not this mine. Not this place.
Reposted byTina Smith
When Trump took office, there was a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, hostages were being released, and aid was getting into Gaza. Now, none of that is true. The blockage of aid is causing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Israel is readying a long-term occupation of the Strip.
Reposted byTina Smith
This is a great illustration of why wholly unqualified extremists shouldn't be running essential government agencies.
@acyn.bsky.social
Can’t imagine if I went up to Duluth and said a slow port is a good thing.
A joyous day for Catholics across the globe, but especially those here in the United States who are seeing the first American Pope. I’m hopeful that Pope Leo XIV can continue the legacy of Pope Francis by encouraging selflessness, humility and service to the world’s poorest and most marginalized.
Today. Be there.
#SaveTheBWCA
Making it harder for sick people to receive health care saves money... by keeping people sick. If they can't afford to go to the doctor, we don't have to pay for it.
That's R's logic.
Reality check: Cutting coverage doesn't cut sickness.
R's: We're going to cut Medicaid
D's: People will lose their health insurance.
R's: Liars!
CBO: Actually, yeah, people will. A lot of people, in fact. Millions.
Reposted byTina Smith
These numbers are damning. Millions of Americans will lose health insurance if Republicans get their way.
Gee, who would’ve known they’re so blatantly corrupt…
Scoop: We've obtained internal cables showing how the U.S. government is pushing countries facing tariffs to clear way for Musk's Starlink
State Dept says it's good to encourage Starlink adoption
Others point to blurring of Musk's private/government roles ...
www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...
Reposted byTina Smith
One of the 100K+ people who lost their health insurance when Missouri slashed Medicaid in 2005 was a woman working a $6.70/hour McDonald’s job.
Her ~$300/week pay put her over the stricter income limits despite supporting 3 kids.
Now, congressional GOP are considering cuts that could be bigger...
I’m prepared to fight with every tool at my disposal to stop this effort and to protect the Boundary Waters for future generations.
By including this language in their big budget bill, they have made it clear they don’t care about the science or the data, which shows unequivocally that this type of mining poses an unacceptable risk.
Republicans in Congress are trying to give a foreign conglomerate full permission to build a copper-nickel sulfide mine right on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters watershed and irreversibly pollute this pristine wilderness.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2026-04-13 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-03-26 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-26 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 103 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-03-25 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 107 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S.J. Res. 116 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 116 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-03-23 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-03-23 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-03-22 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (41-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (49-41, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-20 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (47-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-18 | S.J. Res. 118 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 118 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-17 | S. 1383 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (89-10) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (82-11, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (84-10) |
| 2026-03-10 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (89-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-10 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
| 2026-03-09 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-28) |
| 2026-03-05 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-04 | S.J. Res. 104 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 104 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-04 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8) |
| 2026-03-02 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-6, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-33) |
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.