WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.279 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. I have to admit, 00:00:02.480 --> 00:00:06.200 I didn't expect to find much in a Wikipedia table 00:00:06.200 --> 00:00:08.519 of election statistics. Yeah, it's not exactly 00:00:08.519 --> 00:00:11.000 a thriller novel. Right. But our source material 00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:14.859 today is just this brilliant example of how raw 00:00:14.859 --> 00:00:17.739 data can tell a completely compelling story. 00:00:17.940 --> 00:00:21.019 We are looking at a single digital page, the 00:00:21.019 --> 00:00:24.460 list of United States Senate elections in Delaware. 00:00:24.969 --> 00:00:27.109 It is an unconventional text for us to analyze, 00:00:27.269 --> 00:00:30.210 for sure. When you first scroll through it, it 00:00:30.210 --> 00:00:32.070 just looks like a fairly standard historical 00:00:32.070 --> 00:00:34.789 ledger. Yeah, just columns. Exactly. Columns 00:00:34.789 --> 00:00:37.850 of dates, politician names, and raw vote counts 00:00:37.850 --> 00:00:40.229 stretching back over a century. But if you look 00:00:40.229 --> 00:00:42.189 closely at the math, you know, in those shifting 00:00:42.189 --> 00:00:44.490 margins, that spreadsheet reveals a sweeping 00:00:44.490 --> 00:00:46.789 narrative. It really does. We are going to track 00:00:46.789 --> 00:00:51.109 a journey from 1916... all the way to 2024. We're 00:00:51.109 --> 00:00:53.189 extracting the hidden stories of how a single 00:00:53.189 --> 00:00:55.530 state's political landscape completely transformed 00:00:55.530 --> 00:00:57.789 purely through the lens of this electoral data. 00:00:58.009 --> 00:01:00.429 But before we jump into the timeline, a really 00:01:00.429 --> 00:01:02.210 quick note for you listening. Yes, very important 00:01:02.210 --> 00:01:05.390 context here. Right. Looking at a century of 00:01:05.390 --> 00:01:08.170 Democrats and Republicans battling it out, our 00:01:08.170 --> 00:01:11.390 goal today isn't to pick a side or endorse anyone's 00:01:11.390 --> 00:01:13.950 politics. Absolutely not. We're strictly playing 00:01:13.950 --> 00:01:16.469 the role of impartial data analysts. That is 00:01:16.469 --> 00:01:19.150 a crucial distinction. are not endorsing any 00:01:19.150 --> 00:01:21.849 political viewpoints, candidates or parties. 00:01:22.030 --> 00:01:24.909 Right. We are simply reporting on the factual 00:01:24.909 --> 00:01:27.950 numbers, the historical outcomes and the statistical 00:01:27.950 --> 00:01:30.310 trends contained in the original source material. 00:01:30.670 --> 00:01:33.310 It is a data set. And we are letting those numbers 00:01:33.310 --> 00:01:36.310 do the talking. Nicely put. So with that established, 00:01:36.450 --> 00:01:38.590 we need to set the foundation. Let's do it. The 00:01:38.590 --> 00:01:40.430 data set doesn't start at the founding of the 00:01:40.430 --> 00:01:44.370 country. It begins specifically in 1916. Why 00:01:44.370 --> 00:01:47.519 that year? So the starting line of 1916 represents 00:01:47.519 --> 00:01:49.920 the first monumental shift we encounter in the 00:01:49.920 --> 00:01:53.379 text. Before 1914, United States senators were 00:01:53.379 --> 00:01:55.540 elected by state legislatures. Meaning the voters 00:01:55.540 --> 00:01:57.799 weren't directly involved. Correct. In Delaware, 00:01:57.900 --> 00:01:59.640 that meant the General Assembly made the choice. 00:01:59.799 --> 00:02:02.079 But the implementation of the 17th Amendment 00:02:02.079 --> 00:02:04.400 mandated the popular election of U .S. senators. 00:02:04.799 --> 00:02:08.500 Yeah, so this table begins in 1916 because that 00:02:08.500 --> 00:02:11.580 is the exact moment this new democratic reality 00:02:11.580 --> 00:02:14.520 went into effect for Delaware's Class I Senate 00:02:14.520 --> 00:02:16.740 seat. I think a lot of people see the terms Class 00:02:16.740 --> 00:02:19.199 1 and Class 2 Senate seats and just sort of gloss 00:02:19.199 --> 00:02:22.539 over them. Sure. But the text uses them to organize 00:02:22.539 --> 00:02:25.259 the entire timeline. It is the architecture of 00:02:25.259 --> 00:02:27.759 the data. The U .S. Senate is divided into three 00:02:27.759 --> 00:02:30.719 classes with staggered terms. That ensures only 00:02:30.719 --> 00:02:32.639 about a third of the seats are up for election 00:02:32.639 --> 00:02:35.520 every two years. Got it. Delaware, like every 00:02:35.520 --> 00:02:38.000 state, has two seats, and they happen to fall 00:02:38.000 --> 00:02:40.870 into Class 1 and Class 2. The source material 00:02:40.870 --> 00:02:43.569 tracks these two distinct lineages side by side. 00:02:43.610 --> 00:02:45.409 That makes sense. And the text also includes 00:02:45.409 --> 00:02:47.530 a fantastic piece of historical trivia regarding 00:02:47.530 --> 00:02:50.550 the calendar. Oh, right. The dates. Yeah. Elections 00:02:50.550 --> 00:02:52.330 are held on the first Tuesday after November 00:02:52.330 --> 00:02:55.770 1st. But before 1935, the Senate terms actually 00:02:55.770 --> 00:02:58.449 began on March 4th rather than the January 3rd 00:02:58.449 --> 00:03:01.090 date we are accustomed to today. So we have an 00:03:01.090 --> 00:03:04.069 expanding voter base and staggered terms. OK, 00:03:04.110 --> 00:03:06.430 let's unpack this. If we go back to that starting 00:03:06.430 --> 00:03:09.009 line in 1916, what does the very first popular 00:03:09.009 --> 00:03:12.229 vote look like on this list? In the 1916 class 00:03:12.229 --> 00:03:15.930 one election, Democrat Josiah O. Wolcott defeated 00:03:15.930 --> 00:03:18.710 the Republican incumbent, Henry A. DuPont. OK. 00:03:18.990 --> 00:03:20.909 And I want you to hold on to the winning vote 00:03:20.909 --> 00:03:24.800 count here. Wolcott won the seat with just 25 00:03:24.800 --> 00:03:29.439 ,434 votes. 25 ,000. That's it. That is the baseline 00:03:29.439 --> 00:03:31.740 we are working with. Keep that number in mind 00:03:31.740 --> 00:03:34.740 because just six years later, we had a data point 00:03:34.740 --> 00:03:37.240 that genuinely defies modern political logic. 00:03:37.400 --> 00:03:40.259 It really does. The date is November 7, 1922. 00:03:40.719 --> 00:03:43.240 Set the scene for us based on the footnotes. 00:03:43.240 --> 00:03:46.800 The notes reveal a completely unprecedented logistical 00:03:46.800 --> 00:03:50.039 situation. Josiah Wolcott, the winner from that 00:03:50.039 --> 00:03:53.439 initial 1916 race, resigned from his seat, which 00:03:53.439 --> 00:03:55.879 triggered a special election to fill the vacancy 00:03:55.879 --> 00:03:58.180 for the remainder of his term. But because of 00:03:58.180 --> 00:04:00.330 the calendar. The special election landed on 00:04:00.330 --> 00:04:02.689 the exact same day as the regular election for 00:04:02.689 --> 00:04:04.550 the next full term. Put yourself in the shoes 00:04:04.550 --> 00:04:07.030 of a voter walking into the booth on that Tuesday 00:04:07.030 --> 00:04:09.770 in 1922. You have to vote for the exact same 00:04:09.770 --> 00:04:12.090 Senate seat twice on a single piece of paper. 00:04:12.289 --> 00:04:14.810 Once for the special election to fill the empty 00:04:14.810 --> 00:04:17.110 seat right then and there. And once for the regular 00:04:17.110 --> 00:04:18.949 election for the six year term that immediately 00:04:18.949 --> 00:04:21.310 follows. It's a double header. A double header. 00:04:21.410 --> 00:04:23.430 How did the numbers shake out for the special 00:04:23.430 --> 00:04:25.930 election? The Democratic candidate is Thomas 00:04:25.930 --> 00:04:28.889 F. Bayer Jr. and the Republican. is T. Coleman 00:04:28.889 --> 00:04:31.689 DuPont, who was the incumbent temporarily appointed 00:04:31.689 --> 00:04:35.250 to hold the seat. In this special election, Bayard 00:04:35.250 --> 00:04:42.290 received 36 ,954 votes. DuPont received 36 ,894 00:04:42.290 --> 00:04:45.069 votes. Wait, do the math for me there. That is 00:04:45.069 --> 00:04:47.310 a difference of exactly 60 votes out of nearly 00:04:47.310 --> 00:04:50.959 74 ,000 cast. 60 individual votes deciding a 00:04:50.959 --> 00:04:53.100 United States Senate seat. Incredible, isn't 00:04:53.100 --> 00:04:54.779 it? That margin is smaller than the attendance 00:04:54.779 --> 00:04:56.839 of a typical high school band. And they had to 00:04:56.839 --> 00:04:58.579 run it back for the regular election on the same 00:04:58.579 --> 00:05:01.160 day. Did the margins widen? Barely. In the regular 00:05:01.160 --> 00:05:03.180 election for the next term, Bayard and DuPont 00:05:03.180 --> 00:05:07.560 face off again. Bayard gets 37 ,304 votes. DuPont 00:05:07.560 --> 00:05:11.639 gets 36 ,979. So he wins again. He does. Bayard 00:05:11.639 --> 00:05:14.339 wins the full term by just 325 votes. Still insanely 00:05:14.339 --> 00:05:16.839 close. What's fascinating here is what we find 00:05:16.839 --> 00:05:18.779 when we dig into footnotes C and D in the source 00:05:18.779 --> 00:05:21.660 material. Whenever an analyst sees margins of 00:05:21.660 --> 00:05:25.360 60 votes and 325 votes, they immediately check 00:05:25.360 --> 00:05:28.040 the entire field to see if the math was fractured. 00:05:28.139 --> 00:05:30.399 To see if someone siphoned off votes. Exactly. 00:05:30.540 --> 00:05:33.000 And the notes reveal a third candidate on the 00:05:33.000 --> 00:05:35.959 ballot that day named Frank Stevens. The ultimate 00:05:35.959 --> 00:05:38.459 spoiler candidate. How many votes did Stevens 00:05:38.459 --> 00:05:40.939 pull? In the special election, Frank Stevens 00:05:40.939 --> 00:05:44.939 received 581 votes. In the regular election, 00:05:45.160 --> 00:05:49.040 he received 608 votes. When an election is decided 00:05:49.040 --> 00:05:51.620 by 60 votes, a third -party candidate pulling 00:05:51.620 --> 00:05:54.279 in nearly 600 votes is mathematically explosive. 00:05:54.600 --> 00:05:57.079 That is almost 10 times the margin of victory. 00:05:57.259 --> 00:06:00.339 Look at the proportions. A 60 -vote margin out 00:06:00.339 --> 00:06:03.339 of roughly 74 ,000 total ballots is a difference 00:06:03.339 --> 00:06:07.019 of less than one -tenth of 1%. Meanwhile, Stevens 00:06:07.019 --> 00:06:10.180 captured nearly 1 % of the total vote. If even 00:06:10.180 --> 00:06:12.019 a fraction of his supporters had swung to the 00:06:12.019 --> 00:06:14.379 runner -up, the entire historical outcome for 00:06:14.379 --> 00:06:17.000 that seat flips. Imagine waiting for those results 00:06:17.000 --> 00:06:20.279 in 1922. There is no instant digital tabulation. 00:06:20.279 --> 00:06:23.680 None. They are waiting for literal hand -counted 00:06:23.680 --> 00:06:26.300 paper ballots to be reported from across the 00:06:26.300 --> 00:06:28.899 entire state. It is absolute proof, permanently 00:06:28.899 --> 00:06:31.800 etched into the historical record, that every 00:06:31.800 --> 00:06:34.660 single individual vote can alter a trajectory. 00:06:34.939 --> 00:06:37.639 But as we move down the table into the following 00:06:37.639 --> 00:06:42.540 decades, that era of chaotic, unpredictable nail 00:06:42.540 --> 00:06:45.579 biters fades away. It does. The data reveals 00:06:45.579 --> 00:06:47.540 a completely different pattern emerging by the 00:06:47.540 --> 00:06:50.259 mid -20th century. We enter an era defined by 00:06:50.259 --> 00:06:52.860 the by a profound incumbency advantage. People 00:06:52.860 --> 00:06:55.600 liked who they had. Right. Delaware voters began 00:06:55.600 --> 00:06:57.920 demonstrating a statistical propensity for keeping 00:06:57.920 --> 00:07:00.360 their sitting senators in office for incredibly 00:07:00.360 --> 00:07:03.379 long stretches of time. We see this trend materialize 00:07:03.379 --> 00:07:05.579 strongly on the Republican side first. Walk us 00:07:05.579 --> 00:07:08.100 through the class one seat starting in the 1940s. 00:07:08.160 --> 00:07:10.620 We find Republican John J. Williams winning his 00:07:10.620 --> 00:07:13.839 first election in 1946. He secures four consecutive 00:07:13.839 --> 00:07:20.180 elections, 1946, 1952, 1958, and 1964. 24 years 00:07:20.180 --> 00:07:22.600 of holding the exact same seat. And then he passes 00:07:22.600 --> 00:07:25.860 the baton to another titan of longevity. Following 00:07:25.860 --> 00:07:28.040 Williams in that class one seat is Republican 00:07:28.040 --> 00:07:31.800 William Roth. Roth wins in 1970 and then proceeds 00:07:31.800 --> 00:07:36.259 to win in 1976, 1982, 1988, and 1994. Five consecutive 00:07:36.259 --> 00:07:39.540 elections. Five. And by his 1988 victory, Roth's 00:07:39.540 --> 00:07:44.740 vote total peaked at 151 ,115 votes. Our 1916 00:07:44.740 --> 00:07:47.620 baseline was 25 ,000, and we're now well into 00:07:47.620 --> 00:07:50.019 the 150 ,000s. The data presents an even more 00:07:50.019 --> 00:07:52.399 extensive streak if we shift our focus to the 00:07:52.399 --> 00:07:54.120 Class II Senate seat. Okay, let's pull up the 00:07:54.120 --> 00:07:57.199 Class II data for the year 1972. The Republican 00:07:57.199 --> 00:08:00.379 incumbent is J .K. who had already won two terms. 00:08:00.500 --> 00:08:02.639 He is challenged by a Democratic candidate named 00:08:02.639 --> 00:08:05.500 Joe Biden. And the data shows a remarkably tight 00:08:05.500 --> 00:08:08.180 race to kick off this sequence. It does. Biden 00:08:08.180 --> 00:08:13.459 receives 116 ,006 votes. Boggs receives 112 ,844 00:08:13.459 --> 00:08:16.519 votes. Wow. Close. That is a margin of just over 00:08:16.519 --> 00:08:20.139 3 ,000 votes out of nearly 230 ,000 total ballots 00:08:20.139 --> 00:08:22.839 cast. While it is not the 60 vote razor's edge 00:08:22.839 --> 00:08:26.079 of 1922, statistically, it is a very narrow victory 00:08:26.079 --> 00:08:28.620 and it initiates the longest single streak recorded 00:08:28.620 --> 00:08:31.060 in this document. According to the table, Biden 00:08:31.060 --> 00:08:33.919 wins that seat in 1972 and then successfully 00:08:33.919 --> 00:08:38.799 defends it in 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996, 2002 and 00:08:38.799 --> 00:08:42.100 2008. Seven consecutive elections. Seven. And 00:08:42.100 --> 00:08:44.399 if you track his raw vote totals across that 00:08:44.399 --> 00:08:46.360 timeline, you see the sustained growth of the 00:08:46.360 --> 00:08:49.700 electorate. He starts with 116 ,000 votes in 00:08:49.700 --> 00:08:52.799 72. By his final election on this list in 2008, 00:08:53.000 --> 00:08:57.200 his winning vote total had reached 257 ,539. 00:08:57.480 --> 00:08:59.799 It's massive growth. So what does this all mean? 00:08:59.899 --> 00:09:02.080 When you look at a candidate holding a seat from 00:09:02.080 --> 00:09:05.480 1972 to 2008, what is the underlying reality 00:09:05.480 --> 00:09:08.200 of that data? The stamina required to maintain 00:09:08.200 --> 00:09:11.539 a political position for 36 years is mathematically 00:09:11.539 --> 00:09:13.860 staggering. We're looking at an individual who 00:09:13.860 --> 00:09:15.980 had to continually appeal to shifting demographics. 00:09:16.220 --> 00:09:18.419 Because the voters change? Exactly. The coalition 00:09:18.419 --> 00:09:21.100 of voters who elected him in 1972 were in an 00:09:21.100 --> 00:09:23.559 entirely different stage of life by 2008, and 00:09:23.559 --> 00:09:25.720 an entirely new generation of voters had entered 00:09:25.720 --> 00:09:27.860 the pool. Yet the electoral outcome remained 00:09:27.860 --> 00:09:30.000 a constant. But, Strux, even those spanning decades 00:09:30.000 --> 00:09:32.580 eventually break. They do. And that brings us 00:09:32.580 --> 00:09:34.610 to the turn of the millennium. The data points 00:09:34.610 --> 00:09:37.370 from the year 2000 onward reveal another substantial 00:09:37.370 --> 00:09:40.090 shift in the state's political behavior, coupled 00:09:40.090 --> 00:09:42.649 with just an absolute explosion in voter turnout. 00:09:43.090 --> 00:09:45.490 Returning to Class 1C, we left off with William 00:09:45.490 --> 00:09:47.929 Roth, who had secured five consecutive terms. 00:09:48.149 --> 00:09:51.710 In the year 2000, that streak ends. The streak 00:09:51.710 --> 00:09:54.889 breaker. Democrat Tom Carper defeats Roth, capturing 00:09:54.889 --> 00:10:01.700 181 ,566 votes to Roth's 142 ,891. And true to 00:10:01.700 --> 00:10:03.919 the historical pattern we've identified, Carper 00:10:03.919 --> 00:10:06.100 breaking one streak merely serves as the catalyst 00:10:06.100 --> 00:10:08.279 for a new one. Ah, of course. He goes on to win 00:10:08.279 --> 00:10:11.480 in 2006, 2012 and 2018. We observe a similar 00:10:11.480 --> 00:10:13.820 transition in the class two seat. The seven term 00:10:13.820 --> 00:10:17.019 run that began in 1972 concludes, which necessitates 00:10:17.019 --> 00:10:19.460 a special election in 2010. What do the numbers 00:10:19.460 --> 00:10:21.299 look like there? In the 2010 special election, 00:10:21.519 --> 00:10:23.820 Democrat Chris Coons defeats Republican Christine 00:10:23.820 --> 00:10:26.610 O'Donnell. The vote counts here clearly reflect 00:10:26.610 --> 00:10:28.830 the newly expanded electorate. Coons wins with 00:10:28.830 --> 00:10:32.429 174 ,012 votes, while O'Donnell receives 123 00:10:32.429 --> 00:10:35.250 ,053. Those are huge numbers compared to the 00:10:35.250 --> 00:10:37.809 early days. And following the established incumbency 00:10:37.809 --> 00:10:40.509 trend, Coons builds his own consecutive streak, 00:10:40.590 --> 00:10:43.710 securing reelection in 2014 and 2020. Which brings 00:10:43.710 --> 00:10:45.370 us to the present day in our source material. 00:10:45.629 --> 00:10:47.629 The most recent data point on the list is the 00:10:47.629 --> 00:10:51.070 2024 class one election. Democrat Lisa Blunt 00:10:51.070 --> 00:10:55.549 Rochester wins the seat with 283 ,298 votes against 00:10:55.549 --> 00:11:00.149 Republican Eric Hansen's 197 ,753 votes. If we 00:11:00.149 --> 00:11:02.330 connect this to the bigger picture, this is where 00:11:02.330 --> 00:11:04.370 the sheer scale of the transformation becomes 00:11:04.370 --> 00:11:07.879 undeniable. Think back to Josiah Wolcott's victory 00:11:07.879 --> 00:11:10.679 in 1916. Right. Wolcott won the entire state 00:11:10.679 --> 00:11:15.700 with 25 ,434 votes. Compare that to 2024. The 00:11:15.700 --> 00:11:18.419 winning candidate secured over 283 ,000 votes. 00:11:18.580 --> 00:11:20.740 It's just wild. The runner -up secured nearly 00:11:20.740 --> 00:11:24.019 198 ,000 votes. The candidate who lost in 2024 00:11:24.019 --> 00:11:26.220 received almost eight times as many votes as 00:11:26.220 --> 00:11:28.259 the candidate who won a century prior. Unbelievable. 00:11:28.259 --> 00:11:30.919 The winner in 2024 received more than 10 times 00:11:30.919 --> 00:11:33.580 the votes of the 1916 winner. A tenfold increase 00:11:33.580 --> 00:11:36.019 in raw votes. volume. Now, it is easy to just 00:11:36.019 --> 00:11:37.840 attribute that to population growth, but it has 00:11:37.840 --> 00:11:39.659 to be more complex than just a higher headcount 00:11:39.659 --> 00:11:41.960 in the state, right? It is far more complex. 00:11:41.960 --> 00:11:44.200 The physical population expanded, certainly. 00:11:45.100 --> 00:11:48.159 But this exponential growth also tells a profound 00:11:48.159 --> 00:11:51.200 story about the expansion of the franchise and 00:11:51.200 --> 00:11:53.820 civic participation. Right. We're looking at 00:11:53.820 --> 00:11:56.220 the mathematical results of generations of voter 00:11:56.220 --> 00:11:58.879 registration drives, increased access to the 00:11:58.879 --> 00:12:01.919 ballot box, changes in voting rights and a public 00:12:01.919 --> 00:12:04.620 that became deeply numerically engaged in the 00:12:04.620 --> 00:12:07.759 electoral process. The sheer volume of Democratic 00:12:07.759 --> 00:12:11.000 participation multiplied. It is incredible to 00:12:11.000 --> 00:12:14.080 see societal evolution captured purely in columns 00:12:14.080 --> 00:12:16.759 of numbers. Now, we've spent a lot of time analyzing 00:12:16.759 --> 00:12:18.940 the titans of this list, the candidates pulling 00:12:18.940 --> 00:12:21.419 in hundreds of thousands of votes. Here's where 00:12:21.419 --> 00:12:23.480 it gets really interesting. I want to look at 00:12:23.480 --> 00:12:25.519 the opposite end of the spectrum, the quirks 00:12:25.519 --> 00:12:27.600 and the margins. The footnotes of this Wikipedia 00:12:27.600 --> 00:12:30.179 page are an absolute goldmine for statistical 00:12:30.179 --> 00:12:32.980 outliers. They really are. Amidst these giants 00:12:32.980 --> 00:12:35.139 battling for statewide supremacy, you have these 00:12:35.139 --> 00:12:37.500 incredibly small anomalies. Give us the data 00:12:37.500 --> 00:12:41.480 from the 1934 election. In 1934, John G. Townsend 00:12:41.480 --> 00:12:45.360 Jr. wins with over 52 ,000 votes. But Note E 00:12:45.360 --> 00:12:47.960 documents an additional candidate on the ballot, 00:12:48.360 --> 00:12:50.940 John T. Lodkoski. Total votes received across 00:12:50.940 --> 00:12:54.399 the entire state. 69. 69 votes. And it is not 00:12:54.399 --> 00:12:57.379 an isolated incident. Look at 1964. John Jay 00:12:57.379 --> 00:13:00.179 Williams is pulling in over 100 ,000 votes to 00:13:00.179 --> 00:13:02.879 secure his fourth term. But down in Note G, we 00:13:02.879 --> 00:13:05.360 find Joseph B. Holland, a candidate who received 00:13:05.360 --> 00:13:09.279 exactly 71 votes. As analysts, we have to appreciate 00:13:09.279 --> 00:13:11.659 the friction between the effort required to run 00:13:11.659 --> 00:13:14.399 and the statistical payout. Securing a place 00:13:14.399 --> 00:13:16.899 on a United States Senate ballot requires genuine 00:13:16.899 --> 00:13:19.139 logistical work. Yeah, it's not easy. You have 00:13:19.139 --> 00:13:21.500 to file official paperwork, meet state requirements. 00:13:21.679 --> 00:13:24.340 publicly declare a candidacy, to navigate that 00:13:24.340 --> 00:13:26.200 entire process for one of the highest offices 00:13:26.200 --> 00:13:28.360 in the land, and to walk away with fewer than 00:13:28.360 --> 00:13:31.039 100 votes across an entire state. The contrast 00:13:31.039 --> 00:13:32.960 is striking. You really have to wonder at the 00:13:32.960 --> 00:13:35.620 mechanics of a statewide campaign that nets 69 00:13:35.620 --> 00:13:38.080 votes. That is essentially an extended family, 00:13:38.200 --> 00:13:40.259 a few supportive neighbors, and maybe a bowling 00:13:40.259 --> 00:13:42.700 team. Pretty much. A moderately successful local 00:13:42.700 --> 00:13:44.940 bake sale has more foot traffic than that Senate 00:13:44.940 --> 00:13:47.360 campaign had voters. While it provides a moment 00:13:47.360 --> 00:13:49.700 of levity in the data, These micro candidates 00:13:49.700 --> 00:13:52.279 serve a very vital purpose in the historical 00:13:52.279 --> 00:13:55.059 record. How so? They are a permanent testament 00:13:55.059 --> 00:13:57.879 to the accessibility of the ballot. The system 00:13:57.879 --> 00:14:00.320 was open to more than just the political titans 00:14:00.320 --> 00:14:03.879 backed by massive organizational machines. Anyone 00:14:03.879 --> 00:14:06.759 who met the legal criteria could enter the arena. 00:14:06.980 --> 00:14:09.100 That's a great point. Joseph B. Holland and John 00:14:09.100 --> 00:14:12.440 T. Vladkovsky are forever recorded in the exact 00:14:12.440 --> 00:14:15.559 same historical ledger as the candidates who 00:14:15.559 --> 00:14:18.860 served for 36 years. Their 70 -something votes 00:14:18.860 --> 00:14:21.200 represent participation in the Democratic record 00:14:21.200 --> 00:14:24.179 just as legitimately as the hundreds of thousands 00:14:24.179 --> 00:14:26.279 of votes do today. That is a surprisingly... 00:14:26.480 --> 00:14:29.080 elegant way to view a footnote, and I think it 00:14:29.080 --> 00:14:31.139 perfectly encapsulates the journey we have taken 00:14:31.139 --> 00:14:33.679 today. We started by looking at a supposedly 00:14:33.679 --> 00:14:37.659 dry Wikipedia table, just dates, names, and numbers. 00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:40.620 But as the data revealed, that simple table serves 00:14:40.620 --> 00:14:42.980 as a remarkably accurate mirror reflecting a 00:14:42.980 --> 00:14:45.279 changing electorate. We tracked the fundamental 00:14:45.279 --> 00:14:48.139 shift from General Assembly appointments to popular 00:14:48.139 --> 00:14:51.940 votes in 1916. We analyzed the intense mathematical 00:14:51.940 --> 00:14:54.879 tension of a 60 -vote margin deciding a U .S. 00:14:54.899 --> 00:14:58.289 Senate seat in the double election of 1922. We 00:14:58.289 --> 00:15:00.710 observed the decades -long streaks of incumbents 00:15:00.710 --> 00:15:02.429 who managed to hold on to their seats through 00:15:02.429 --> 00:15:05.710 changing generations. And we quantified the absolute 00:15:05.710 --> 00:15:08.549 explosion of voter turnout, swelling from 25 00:15:08.549 --> 00:15:12.850 ,000 winning votes to well over 280 ,000 by 2024. 00:15:13.389 --> 00:15:15.870 It really makes you rethink the numbers in your 00:15:15.870 --> 00:15:18.960 own life. I want you, listening right now, to 00:15:18.960 --> 00:15:21.539 pull up the raw data from your own local elections. 00:15:21.820 --> 00:15:23.840 Look at the vote counts for your city council, 00:15:24.080 --> 00:15:26.120 your mayor, or your own state's representatives. 00:15:26.519 --> 00:15:28.899 Those raw numbers aren't just trivia. They are 00:15:28.899 --> 00:15:31.200 telling a specific story about your community's 00:15:31.200 --> 00:15:33.559 growth, its history, and its shifting values. 00:15:34.349 --> 00:15:36.710 Sometimes a column of data captures a narrative 00:15:36.710 --> 00:15:39.370 that words alone just can't articulate. This 00:15:39.370 --> 00:15:41.070 raises an important question, one that I think 00:15:41.070 --> 00:15:43.549 is worth dwelling on long after we wrap up today's 00:15:43.549 --> 00:15:45.970 analysis. It is a question based purely on the 00:15:45.970 --> 00:15:48.070 extremes of the text we've examined. I love these. 00:15:48.169 --> 00:15:50.320 Let's hear it. When you look at a race like Thomas 00:15:50.320 --> 00:15:53.220 F .B .R. Jr. winning by just 60 votes, in a pool 00:15:53.220 --> 00:15:57.639 around 74 ,000 total voters in 1922, compared 00:15:57.639 --> 00:16:00.220 to Lisa Blunt Rochester winning in a modern pool 00:16:00.220 --> 00:16:03.460 of nearly half a million voters in 2024, does 00:16:03.460 --> 00:16:05.539 the mathematical weight of a single individual 00:16:05.539 --> 00:16:07.759 vote feel more powerful when the electorate is 00:16:07.759 --> 00:16:11.139 tiny? Or does the sheer scale and magnitude of 00:16:11.139 --> 00:16:13.379 modern turnout make the collective voice of the 00:16:13.379 --> 00:16:15.700 people more profound? That is a phenomenal thought 00:16:15.700 --> 00:16:18.100 to end on. Does the power lie in the closeness 00:16:18.100 --> 00:16:20.340 of the margin or the roar of the crowd? You really 00:16:20.340 --> 00:16:22.399 can't help but look at the data differently once 00:16:22.399 --> 00:16:25.470 you start asking those kinds of questions. Well, 00:16:25.470 --> 00:16:27.009 that is all the time we have for our analysis 00:16:27.009 --> 00:16:28.909 today. I want to thank you for joining us on 00:16:28.909 --> 00:16:30.809 this deep dive into the numbers. It's been a 00:16:30.809 --> 00:16:33.129 fantastic experience unpacking the century of 00:16:33.129 --> 00:16:35.350 data with you. Remember, whether you are looking 00:16:35.350 --> 00:16:37.590 at a history book or a seemingly boring spreadsheet, 00:16:37.970 --> 00:16:40.490 there's always more to learn. See you next time.