Welcome in. If you are prepping for a big presentation,
trying to catch up on an entirely new subject,
or you're just insanely curious about how the
world actually works, we know the trap. Oh yeah,
the trap is definitely information overload.
It really is. You want that thorough knowledge,
you want multiple perspectives, and you want
those incredible aha moments. Right. But you
definitely don't want to feel buried under a
mountain of dry data. You want the shortcut.
to being well informed without having to read
a dense textbook. Well, we are skipping the textbook
today. Completely. It's a delicate balance, you
know, trying to synthesize decades or even centuries
of information without losing the narrative thread.
The goal today is to provide that broader context
for you. We're going to take raw data points
and connect the dots so you can see not just
what happened, but why it actually matters to
you right now. And the data points we're looking
at today are surprisingly dramatic. We are taking
a deep dive. into the rich history of United
States senators from Wisconsin. A very interesting
state to look at. Truly. We've got a couple of
really compelling sources for this. Primarily,
we're looking at a comprehensive Wikipedia data
set that meticulously tracks every single Senate
seat in Wisconsin from its statehood in 1848
all the way up to the present day. It's a massive
timeline. It is. And to frame all of that historical
data, we are bringing in a striking statistic
from a November 2024 report in The Washington
Post. Right. Regarding the current political
landscape of the entire country. Exactly. It's
a remarkable collection of information because
on the surface, a historical list of politicians
might just look like. I don't know, a spreadsheet.
Just rows and columns. Yeah, you see a long scrolling
timeline of names, dates, and political parties.
But when you look at the patterns within that
timeline, a much larger story emerges about political
experimentation. Which brings us to our mission
for this deep dive. We are taking this timeline
and uncovering the hidden narratives, the political
whiplash, and the historic anomalies that are
basically hiding in plain sight. I love it. Okay,
let's unpack this. Let's go all the way back
to the starting line. 1848. The very beginning.
I'm looking at these dates, and the sheer speed
of the logistics is blowing my mind. Wisconsin
officially became a state on May 29, 1848. A
monumental day for the region, really establishing
their formal entry into the Union. But look at
the timeline. Just 10 days later. 10 days. On
June 8, 1848, the state had already elected its
very first two United States senators. They did
not waste any time. Not at all. They sent two
Democrats to Washington. Henry Dodge and Isaac
P. Walker. I mean, 10 days to organize a state
government and elect federal representatives
in the mid -19th century. It's almost hard to
picture. Think about the horses, the telegraphs,
the raw logistics required to pull that off.
It highlights the extreme eagerness of a newly
admitted state to establish its voice and its
voting power on the federal level immediately.
They did not want to waste a single legislative
session. Clearly. But what's fascinating here
is what happens next. If we look at the data,
we see the very first major pattern emerge in
the state's political identity. As you mentioned,
the state started out with two Democratic senators
in 1848. But it took less than a decade for a
massive structural shift to occur. Yeah, I'm
scrolling down just to get on this data set right
now. And the colors on the chart completely flip.
Precisely. By 1855, Republican Charles Durkee
takes a seat. And then just two years later,
in 1857, Republican James R. Doolittle takes
the other seat. So it's a total sweep. A complete
sweep. In less than 10 years from statehood,
Wisconsin completely flipped its congressional
representation, which kicked off an era of heavy,
sustained Republican dominance in the state.
Wow. And this early volatility is crucial for
you to understand because it set a lasting precedent.
From its very inception, the data shows us that
Wisconsin was a state. Unafraid to dramatically
change its mind. It was never locked into a single
political identity from the start. Exactly. A
state unafraid to change its mind. That actually
perfectly tees up an oddity I noticed as we move
into the late 1800s. Oh, the comebacks. Yes.
I was looking through the list of names and I
stumbled on something I didn't think happened
in politics very often. I'm looking at Matthew
H. Carpenter in the 1870s. It says he served
a term as a Republican from 1869 to 1875. And
the data set explicitly notes lost reelection.
A tough blow. Usually that's the end of a politician's
Wikipedia table, right? They just fade into history.
But his name pops up again four years later.
Is that a typo in the data set? It's not a typo
at all. It's a very unique historical quirk in
this delegation. Carpenter actually runs again
in 1879, wins, and takes the seat right back.
And John Coit Schooner does the exact same thing
a few rows down. He does. He served from 1885
to 1891, lost his reelection bid, sat on the
sidelines for several years, and then successfully
returned to the Senate in 1897, serving another
full decade. It's pretty wild. How do you just
come back like that? Well, it speaks to the deeply
entrenched personal brands these figures must
have built within the state. To leave office.
maintain your political apparatus, and then successfully
convince the state to send you back to Washington
requires a formidable level of local influence.
It proves that in this state's politics, a defeat
wasn't necessarily a permanent goodbye. Now,
to fully appreciate how these overlapping terms
and comebacks function, we should briefly clarify
a structural element mentioned throughout the
source material. The Senate class system. Yes,
the Senate classes. Please do explain that because
I see class one and class three over and over
in this data. And honestly, it can be a bit confusing.
What does that actually mean for you as a voter?
Think of the Senate like a board of directors
where only a third of the members contracts expire
every two years. OK. The founders didn't want
the entire Senate to be replaced in a single
election year and risk total chaos. So the seats
are divided into three staggered classes, all
with six -year terms. So it's an anti -panic
mechanism. Exactly that. The data specifically
outlines Wisconsin's two current classes. Class
one belongs to the electoral cycle that was recently
contested in 2024, and its next election will
be in 2030. And Class 3 belongs to the cycle
contested in 2022, and its next election will
be in 2028. If you're a voter, it just means
you'll never have to replace both of your senators
at the exact same time. That makes total sense.
You are providing an ongoing, staggered assessment
of your state's political direction rather than
wiping the slate clean all at once. Okay. Understanding
that structure makes this next part of the timeline
really pop. There you go. Here's where it gets
really interesting. We hit the early 20th century
and we meet Robert M. LaFollette. Just looking
at the raw dates, his tenure is unconventional
from day one. a towering figure in the state's
history. And the data reflects his immense influence
immediately. So according to the timeline, La
Follette is elected to the Senate in 1905. But
he doesn't actually assume office until January
4th, 1906. Right. There's a gap. There's almost
a full year gap. The source notes explain he
was currently the governor of Wisconsin, and
he simply refused to go to Washington until he
felt he had properly finished his business and
officially resigned as governor. He basically
put a United States Senate seat on hold. This
made them wait. Which is an incredible display
of political leverage. Imagine the popularity
required to tell Washington, D .C., to just wait
for you while you finish your local agenda. Unheard
of. And his delayed entry into the Senate marks
the beginning of what we can accurately describe
as a political dynasty within the data. La Follette
served from 1906 all the way until his death
in office on June 18, 1925. And the dynasty aspect
kicks in immediately. Just a few months after
his death, a special election is held to finish
his term, and the state elects his son. Robert
M. La Follette, Jr. Exactly. The seat seamlessly
transitions from father to son. As I'm reading
down the son's column, I see one of the most
wild data anomalies in this entire document.
The visual shift on the timeline is striking.
It's completely jarring. LaFollette Jr. starts
off just like his father. He's listed as a Republican.
He wins the special election in 1925 as a Republican,
and he wins re -election in 1928 as a Republican.
But then you hit his 1934 re -election data,
and the party column literally changes color.
Out of nowhere. A brand new third party appears
out of nowhere in the official records. He is
reelected under the Progressive Party. It's a
fascinating evolution of political identity captured
right there in the official tables. This wasn't
a minor independent run that barely made a dent.
No, he won. This was the formal establishment
of a third -party apparatus strong enough to
win a United States Senate seat, hold it, and
eventually secure re -election in 1940 as well.
What does it take for a literal third party to
just take over a Senate seat like that in the
1930s? Well, it underscores that fiercely independent
streak we've been tracking. The La Follette success
proved that Wisconsin voters prioritize the person
and their specific regional needs. over the national
party label. The brand of the individual was
stronger than the brand of the party. Precisely.
The state wasn't just willing to flip between
Democrats and Republicans. It was willing to
embrace an entirely different political vehicle
if the candidate matched the moment. You literally
see the party label change before your eyes on
the screen. Right. It's such a visceral reminder
that these labels are fluid. Very fluid. But
speaking of fluid labels and that independent
instinct. That exact same voter behavior explains
the most jarring political whiplash in the state's
history just a few decades later. The mid -century
period is a masterclass in how fragile and unpredictable
political eras can be. Let's just look at the
raw facts on the timeline here. Yeah. In the
1946 election, the data shows the state elected
Republican Joseph McCarthy to the Senate. Right.
He assumes office in 1947. He is successfully
reelected by the state in 1952. But then tragedy
strikes during his second term. The timeline
notes that Senator McCarthy died in office on
May 2nd, 1957. If we connect this to the bigger
picture, we see how an unforeseen event, a sudden
vacancy in the middle of a term, can completely
rewrite the long -term history of a state. Because
they have to fill the seat. Exactly. Because
of the rules governing these vacancies, a special
election had to be called to fill the remainder
of that term. And the contrast to what happens
next is just massive. In August of 1957, just
a few months after the sudden vacancy, Wisconsin
holds that election. And they don't elect another
Republican to finish out the term. No, they don't.
They elect Democrat William Proxmire. A fundamental
pivot in representation. Hold on. It's the scale
of the pivot that blew my mind. Proxmire steps
in to finish that term in 1957, and he just never
leaves. He stays for decades. He goes on to be
reelected again and again and again. According
to the data, William Proxmire holds that seat
all the way until January 3, 1989. Unbelievable
longevity. He becomes the longest -serving senator
in the history of Wisconsin. So you go from one
of the most famous Republicans of the 20th century
to a Democrat who holds the seat for three decades.
Talk about giving your voters whiplash. It's
wild to think about how much timing dictates
history here. This shows us that in the Senate,
biological luck and timing can entirely rewrite
a state's political legacy for half a century.
Literally overnight. A single moment in 1957
locked in a political trajectory that lasted
through the Cold War, the Civil Rights era, the
Vietnam War, and all the way into the final days
of the Reagan administration. It really puts
it in perspective. It's a brilliant illustration
of why understanding the mechanics of these vacancies
and the voters immediate reaction to them is
so essential. That transition perfectly brings
us into the modern era. As we look at the late
20th and early 21st centuries on this list, you
start to see some very long, stable runs. You
do. After Proxmire's incredible tenure, the Democratic
Party maintained a very strong grip on these
seats. You see names like Gaylord Nelson serving
from 1963 to 1981. You have Erd Kohl with a massive
run from 1989 to 2013. And Russ Feingold serving
from 1993 to 2011. For a long stretch there,
the timeline looks pretty steadily blue. It does
look that way. But history tells us that in this
state, a dominant streak is often just the setup
for the next balancing act. Which brings us right
up to the present day. If we look at the very
top of the current delegation list, we see a
fascinating reflection of everything we've talked
about so far. Your current roster. Today, the
state is represented by Republican Ron Johnson,
who has held the class three seat since 2011,
and Democrat Tammy Baldwin, who has held the
class one seat since 2013. A split delegation,
one Republican, one Democrat, currently representing
the exact same group of voters. And this is where
we have to bring in that incredible context from
the Washington Post report published in November
of 2024. The broader national view. Yes. They
analyzed the incoming 2025 United States Senate
and they found a staggering statistic. The report
states that fewer states than ever will have
split party Senate delegations. In fact, as of
2025, Wisconsin is one of only three states in
the entire country to have a split delegation.
Only three. Out of 50 states, only three have
sent one senator from each party to Washington.
It's a vanishingly rare phenomenon in modern
American politics. We're living in an era of
intense national polarization where states overwhelmingly
tend to vote uniformly for one party or the other
when it comes to federal representation. Right.
The fact that Wisconsin remains in that tiny
three -state minority is highly significant.
So what does this all mean? When you, the listener,
look at this data, what is the ultimate takeaway
from all these shifting colors and sudden changes?
It means that this incredibly rare modern split
perfectly mirrors the state's entire 175 year
history. This isn't an accident and it isn't
a new phenomenon born out of recent political
climates. It's deep in their DNA. Exactly. From
those 10 -day early flips in the 1850s to the
fiercely independent progressive streak of the
La Follettes in the 1930s to the jarring McCarthy
to Proxmire whiplash of the mid -century Wisconsin's
data proves it is a state that constantly, almost
inherently, balances opposing political forces.
It actively resists being permanently categorized.
Yes. The current split delegation is simply the
modern manifestation of a very old habit of political
experimentation. That's why diving into the raw
data is so much better than just reading a headline.
When you glance at the news today, you might
think a split delegation is just a weird quirk
of a recent election cycle. But when you look
the whole timeline, you realize it's actually
the state's defining characteristic. It is the
defining pattern. Knowing this history gives
you such a massive advantage in understanding
modern political news. It proves that a list
of names and dates isn't just trivia. It's literally
a map of a state's evolving identity. And exploring
that map always leads to new layers of understanding.
In fact, as we wrap up our analysis of this historical
timeline, this raises an important question.
Okay, what is it? One that goes beyond the names
and dates. If we look at the very bottom of the
source material, in the broader profile of the
state, we see a list of Wisconsin's highly distinct
geographic and cultural regions. Oh, the geographic
breakdown of the state itself. Exactly. You see
these distinct areas listed. You have the WW
counties, Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington surrounding
Milwaukee with their specific suburban dynamics.
Right. You have the rugged, unglaciated terrain
of the Driftless area in the west. There's the
maritime culture and tourism heavy economy of
the Door Peninsula. Very different vibes. And
then you have the dense industrial corridors
of the Fox River Valley. It's a state of immense
geographic and cultural variety packed. to a
single border. OK, I see where you're going with
this. So I would challenge you to consider this
as you continue your own learning. How much of
this constant historical push and pull in the
Senate is actually being driven by these wildly
varying local cultures within Wisconsin's own
borders? Wow. Is the political whiplash we see
in Washington merely a reflection of the deep
geographic diversity back home? I love that.
Leaving you with a totally new angle to explore.
The history of the state isn't just happening
in the voting booth. It's tied to the land, the
regions, and the very different ways people live
across that map. It's all connected. That is
a brilliant final thought to mull over. Thank
you so much for joining us on this deep dive.
We know your time is valuable, and we love that
you choose to spend it feeding that curiosity
with us. Keep questioning the data. Keep looking
for those hidden narratives, and we will catch
you on the next deep dive.