Welcome to today's deep dive. If you're tuning
in right now, well, we know exactly who you are.
Yeah, you're someone who loves to learn. Exactly.
You're someone who constantly seeks to connect
the dots and who really appreciates when the
seemingly mundane reveals something, well, something
extraordinary. You don't just want the surface
level headline. Right. You want to know how the
machinery underneath actually works. And because
of that, you are going to really appreciate our
mission today. That is absolutely the goal. We
are looking at a single historical source today.
And at first glance, it might look like the driest
document imaginable. Oh, totally. It's a straightforward
Wikipedia article simply titled List of United
States Senators from Kansas. Literally just columns
of dates, names and political parties. I mean,
it looks like an accountant's ledger from a century
ago. It really does. But our mission today isn't
just to. You know, read a list of names to you.
We are going to extract the hidden stories, the
staggering political streaks and the surprising
human drama that's entirely hidden within the
rigid data columns of this congressional roster.
OK, let's unpack this. It really is an exercise
in reading between the lines of a spreadsheet.
When you take a step back, this source lays out
the entire history of Kansas's representation
in the United States Senate. Right from the very
beginning. Exactly. Starting from the exact moment
it was admitted to the union on January 29th,
1861, all the way down to the current delegation
serving today. And just to set the stage for
our listeners here, we aren't here to... talk
modern politics or take ideological sides. No,
definitely not. Just to be absolutely clear on
that point, while we are discussing right wing
and left wing political parties today, this deep
dive takes no sides. We are impartially analyzing
the historical data provided in the source material
without endorsing any viewpoint whatsoever. We're
just looking at the facts on the page. We're
treating this purely as political archaeologists.
We're looking at how an absolute fortress of
incumbency was built over 160 plus years. We
are simply mapping out the electoral history
to understand the mechanics of power. Precisely.
And the big picture data right at the top of
that history. It hits you with some truly massive
numbers that set the tone for everything else
we're going to discuss today. It's staggering.
In the entire history of the state, there have
been 29 Republicans, just three Democrats, and
exactly two populists in the Senate representing
Kansas. Wow. And today, the state's current senators
are Republicans Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall.
That ratio is just wild to think about, 29 to
3 to 2. Yeah. But the streaks themselves are
even more mind -blowing than the overall. totals.
When you trace the timeline, you find that Kansas
last elected a Democratic senator in 1932. 1932.
Just pause and think about how long ago that
was. We are talking about the era of the Great
Depression. And that political dominance extends
to both seats. As you know, every state has two
Senate seats. In the Senate's organizational
structure, these are categorized into classes,
specifically class two and class three for Kansas.
Wait, before we move on, for those who might
not remember 10th grade civics, what exactly
do those classes mean? Why aren't they just seat
A and seat B? It's a great question, and it goes
right back to the founding fathers. They intentionally
staggered Senate terms so that only a third of
the Senate is up for reelection during any given
election cycle. This was designed to prevent
the entire chamber from being swept out in a
single, volatil election year. So class two senators
belong to one electoral cycle and class three
senators belong to another. That makes perfect
sense. It builds in a sort of forced stability.
And speaking of stability. Both of those seats
in Kansas have been occupied by Republicans since
1939. Yeah, which is. That is the longest current
streak of one party controlling both of the state
Senate seats in the entire country. What's fascinating
here is how a simple timeline reveals a near
century of unbroken political continuity. It
is a visual representation of an absolute political
fortress. It really is. But the historical data
goes even deeper. If you look specifically at
that class two seat. the one that was recently
contested in 2002, 2008, 2014, and 2020, that
specific seat has been held consecutively by
Republicans since 1919. 1919. That is the longest
current streak for a single seat in the entire
United States. Generations of voters have lived
their entire lives without ever seeing that particular
seat flip to another party. It's incredible.
But no fortress is entirely without its breaches.
I was scanning the early years of the timeline,
and in a list of 29 Republicans, Those three
rare Democrats really stand out. They do, and
they are clustered in very specific historical
windows. They aren't evenly spaced out at all.
Right. The first one to break the mold is a man
named John Martin from Topeka. He served from
March 1893 to March 1895. And what's interesting
is that he wasn't elected to a full six -year
term. No, he was elected to finish out a term
for a previous senator who had vacated the seat.
It was a brief window of opportunity. Then, quite
a bit later, you see a second breach in the fortress.
William H. Thompson from Garden City manages
to win a full term. Right. He was elected in
1913 and served until 1919. But he couldn't hold
on to the momentum and ultimately lost his reelection
bid. And that brings us to the final Democratic
exception, George McGill from Wichita. He was
elected in 1930, again, to finish out a partial
term. But unlike Martin, McGill actually managed
to get reelected in 1932 to a full term of his
own. Exactly. And as we noted earlier, that 1932
election is the absolute last time a Democrat
won a Senate race in Kansas. He eventually lost
reelection in 1938 and left office in January
1939. And the door has been firmly shut ever
since. But as rare as those Democrats are, I
found an even stranger anomaly when I was looking
through the late 1800s. I was expecting to just
see the usual back and forth of Republicans and
maybe a Democrat, and suddenly, boom, populist.
It really jumps off the page. The two party system
is so entrenched in our minds that seeing a recognized
third party achieve the highest level of federal
office is jarring. It's totally jarring. And
it wasn't just a one off fluke. It was a back
to back populist presence in the 1890s. Yeah.
First, you have William A. Pepper from Coffeyville.
Right. He was elected in 1891 and served until
1897. He ended up losing reelection. But who
did he lose to? Another populist. A man named
William Harris from Linwood. Exactly, who took
over in 1897 and served until 1903. Before we
rush past that, we should probably clarify what
a populist actually was in the context of the
1890s. Good point. This wasn't just a buzzword.
It was a highly organized agrarian anti -establishment
movement. It was driven largely by farmers who
felt completely left behind by the industrialization
of the era, the banking systems, and the traditional
political parties. So they basically formed their
own political apparatus and successfully took
over a U .S. Senate seat. Twice. If we connect
this to the bigger picture, it really highlights
something profound about political evolution.
You have this massive, seemingly impenetrable
streak stretching across the 20th and 21st centuries.
Right. But if you look at the late 19th century
in this data, the environment was volatile enough
to briefly allow an entirely different grassroots
third party to disrupt the establishment and
represent Kansas and Washington. It proves that
the rigid two party bloc we see today wasn't
always the default reality. Not at all. Vaultal
is definitely the right word, because when you
start looking at the individual electoral histories,
this seemingly boring list of names hide some
incredible human drama and sudden chaos. It starts
right at the very beginning of the state's history.
That's one of the first things I noticed. There's
a weird gap right at the inception. Kansas was
officially admitted to the union on January 29th,
1861. But both Senate seats are listed as vacant
until April 4, 1861. Right. The state didn't
actually elect its first senators until more
than two months after statehood. What happened
there? The machinery of a new state takes time
to get running. You have to remember the context
of early 1861. The country was fracturing, the
Civil War was effectively beginning, and organizing
a brand new state legislature to formally elect
federal senators wasn't something that could
happen overnight. And once that machinery did
get running... The tenure of those early politicians
was far from stable. I was looking at the very
first senator listed for Class II, James H. Lane
from Topeka. Yes. He was elected in 1861, reelected
in 1865, and then his term just abruptly ends
on July 11, 1866. The reason given, it simply
says died. Just like that. No context, just a
stark reality recorded in the historical record.
The disruption to a brand new state losing its
senior senator must have been massive. It is
a harsh reminder of the realities of the era.
And mortality wasn't the only reason for sudden
exits. Definitely not. Just look at the third
senator on the list, Alexander Caldwell from
Leavenworth. He's elected in 1871, but by March
1873, barely two years into his six -year term,
his entry just says, resigned. He just walks
away. And those sudden exits, whether by death
or unexpected resignation, trigger a fascinating
procedural cascade that we see repeated over
and over in this history. The mechanics of filling
a vacant Senate seat are complex. When a senator
leaves early, there is a sudden vacuum of power.
Usually the state's governor makes a temporary
appointment to fill the seat immediately, followed
eventually by a special election where the voters
decide who gets to finish the rest of the original
term. Here's where it gets really interesting,
because the drama wasn't just limited to sudden
deaths or unexplained resignation. Oh, absolutely
not. I was scrolling down to senator number 10.
Joseph Burton from Abilene. He was elected in
1901. But his time in office comes to a very
abrupt halt on June 4th, 1906. And this historical
record pulls no punches. His electoral history
states, resigned when convicted of bribery. A
major political scandal, neatly compressed into
five words. Think about the shockwaves that sends
through a state's political apparatus. You have
a sitting U .S. senator heading to prison. And
Burton's disgraceful exit perfectly illustrates
that procedural cascade we were just talking
about. When Burton resigns in June 1906, there's
an immediate unexpected vacancy. The governor
then appoints a man named Alfred Benson from
Ottawa to temporarily continue Burton's term
and keep the seat warm. But Benton doesn't last
long at all. He is only there for a few months.
This is a pattern we see throughout the history
of the Senate, not just in Kansas. The appointee
curse. The appointee curse. Yeah. The temporary
appointees often struggle immensely to hold on
to the power they were simply handed. They haven't
built the campaign infrastructure or the voter
base themselves. That makes total sense. You
are essentially a substitute teacher trying to
take over the class permanently. Exactly. Alfred
Benson was appointed in June 1906. But he immediately
lost the subsequent special election to actually
finish Burton's term. By January 1907, he is
out, replaced by Charles Curtis, who won the
election from the voters. We see this exact same
dynamic earlier, too. A man named Edmund Ross
was appointed to continue James H. Lane's term
after he died in 1866. Ross managed to scrape
by and win an election to finish that short,
partial term. But when he had to stand for a
full term of his own, he completely lost his
reelection bid. It seems like being the appointed
guy is an incredibly tough political position
to maintain. But you just mentioned Charles Curtis,
the man who took over after the bribery scandal.
Yes. And he brings us to another major theme
hidden in this historical timeline, using the
Senate seat as a stepping stone to the executive
branch. Charles Curtis has one of the wildest
trajectories I have ever seen in politics. He
is a remarkably resilient figure. He really is.
As we noted, he gets elected in 1907 to finish
out the term of the convicted Joseph Burton.
He successfully navigates that chaos. Then he
gets elected to a full term of his own. But in
1913, he loses renomination. His own party says,
no thanks, we're going with someone else. You'd
think his story ends right there in defeat. You
really would. But if you scan further down the
list to the other Senate seat, the class three
seat, there he is again. Charles Curtis from
Topeka mounts a massive comeback and is elected
in 1914. It is incredibly difficult to lose federal
office, lose the backing of your party's nominating
apparatus, and then successfully fight your way
back into the same chamber just a few years later.
It requires a formidable political machine. He
returns to the Senate in March 1915 and stays
there for quite a while, securing reelection
in 1920 and again in 1926. But his time in the
Senate finally ends on March 3rd, 1929, with
a very unique triumphant note. Right. It simply
says he resigned to become U .S. vice president.
From losing a renomination in disgrace to eventually
taking the second highest office in the country,
it is a stunning arc. Truly. But he isn't the
only massive national name on this list with
executive ambitions. If we look much further
down the timeline, jumping into the modern era,
we hit the monumental tenure of Bob Dole. Bob
Dole from Russell, Kansas, occupies a... massive
chunk of this history. He enters the Senate in
January 1969 and he just stays there for decades.
He is reelected in 1974, 1980, 1986 and 1992.
But his end date is June 11th, 1996. The reason
given is incredibly specific and it reveals so
much about how Washington actually works behind
closed doors. It really does. He resigned to
campaign for U .S. president. But there's a crucial
piece of context regarding the exact timing of
that resignation. He retired and resigned early,
specifically to allow his successor to gain seniority.
This raises an important question for anyone
looking at how power operates in the Capitol.
Why would a sitting titan of the Senate voluntarily
step down early? Right. It all comes down to
the mechanics of the Senate, which are heavily
reliant on seniority. Everything from committee
assignments to physical office space is dictated
by how long you've been there. So by stepping
down slightly early to focus on his presidential
run against Bill Clinton, Dole was executing
a strategic final move for his party. He handed
off the seat to a temporary appointee, Sheila
Fromm, from Colby. Exactly. By getting her into
the chamber a few months before the new class
of freshman senators arrived in January, he was
giving her a slight yet crucial edge in tenure
over all the other newcomers across the country.
That's fascinating. It shows how the actions
of the most established politicians are dictated
not just by their own ambitions, but by the strategic
maneuvering required to maintain their party's
leverage within the Senate's arcane rules. It
was a brilliant tactical move by Dole. Unfortunately
for Sheila Fromm, she fell victim to that exact
same temporary appointee curse we talked about
earlier. She was appointed in June 1996 to continue
Dole's term, but she failed to secure the mandate
from the voters. She lost the nomination to finish
that term just a few months later, in November
1996. The seat, instead, went to Sam Brownback.
The maneuvering and the turnover are constant.
We've talked about the resignations, the lost
renominations, the bribery convictions, and the
sudden deaths. But despite all of that historical
turbulence, what truly defines this list, especially
over the last century, are the marathon runners.
The politicians who secured these seats survived
the initial chaos and settled in for a very,
very long time. Right. If you want to talk about
institutional power, you have to ask who stayed
the longest. If you tally up the years in office,
the absolute record holder is Arthur Capper.
Arthur Capper. Capper, who was from Topeka, served
a staggering 30 years. He was elected in 1918,
took office in March 1919, and was re -elected
in 1924, 1930, 1936, and 1942. He finally retired
and left office in January 1949. That is three
solid decades of influence in a single chamber.
30 years in the Senate means you are shaping
national policy through multiple eras of American
history. You are building relationships and institutional
knowledge that make you nearly unbeatable back
home. Yeah. And Capper really sets a precedent
for the modern era stalwarts in Kansas. Once
a politician secures a seat here, they tend to
hold on to it with an iron grip, creating long,
unbreakable chains of incumbency. We see it again
and again. You have Frank Carlson from Concordia,
who serves from 1950 all the way to 1969. All
right. You have Nancy Kasbaum from Wichita. who
was elected in 1978 and stays until 1997. Sam
Brownback from Topeka holds his seat from 1996
until 2011. And of course, Pat Roberts from Dodge
City, who served from 1997 all the way up to
January 2021. Which brings us to the present
day. When you look at the Senate seats specifically,
you can literally track the baton passes over
a century. From Arthur Capper starting his marathon
run in 1919, eventually handing off the institutional
weight to long -serving figures like Bob Dole,
down to Pat Roberts, and over to Jerry Moran
today. And that unbroken Republican Senate streak
trickles down to the House today, too. Because
when we look at the current congressional delegation
as a whole, three of their four current representatives,
Tracy Mann, Derek Schmidt, and Ron Esses, are
Republicans, leaving Sharice Davids. as the lone
Democrat in the House. The sheer weight of that
historical continuity is hard to overstate. It
is a relentless chain. So what does this all
mean? When you step back from this topic, you
realize that knowing the names and dates is just
the surface layer. Exactly. This history contains
the DNA of a state's entire political evolution.
You have the chaos of early statehood with a
two month delay in getting representation in
1861. You have the sudden, unpredictable agrarian
populist wave of the 1890s that completely upended
the establishment. Yeah. You have the scandalous
1906 bribery conviction of Joseph Burton that
triggered a volatile cascade of. temporary appointees,
and overarching it all, you have a century of
unbroken political dominance over a single Senate
seat. For you listening, recognizing these hidden
patterns within historical data is the ultimate
shortcut to being well informed. You don't just
know a trivia list of names. You now understand
the complex mechanics of the longest active political
streak in the United States Senate, the strategic
value of seniority, and the very real human drama
that occurred within those halls of power. It's
amazing what you can find when you stop looking
at history as just a list of facts and start
looking at it as a story of human ambition and
institutional power. It is, and it leaves us
with something deeper to consider as we wrap
up. If a single congressional seat can be held
by one political party without a single interruption
since 1919 surviving through massive global shifts,
the Great Depression, multiple world wars, and
the entire technological revolution, does such
deep -rooted political continuity make a state
immune to national trends? That's a fascinating
question. Or does it simply mean that when a
disruption finally does happen, it will be as
sudden, shocking, and entirely unpredictable
as that? that populist wave of the 1890s. Something
to ponder the next time you look at a simple
timeline of history.