WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.919 Welcome to the deep dive. We are really thrilled 00:00:02.919 --> 00:00:05.219 you could join us today. Yeah, absolutely. Thrilled 00:00:05.219 --> 00:00:07.219 to have you listening in. So I want you to picture 00:00:07.219 --> 00:00:10.179 a scenario. You're doing some research or maybe 00:00:10.179 --> 00:00:13.199 you're just, you know, falling down one of those 00:00:13.199 --> 00:00:15.939 late night Internet rabbit holes and you land 00:00:15.939 --> 00:00:18.739 on a Wikipedia page. We have all been there. 00:00:18.859 --> 00:00:21.620 Right. And at first glance, it is. Well, it's 00:00:21.620 --> 00:00:24.660 the most dry, standard looking page imaginable. 00:00:24.699 --> 00:00:27.960 It's simply titled List of United States Senate 00:00:27.960 --> 00:00:30.980 Elections in Wyoming. Which, I mean, doesn't 00:00:30.980 --> 00:00:33.320 exactly sound like a thriller. No, not at all. 00:00:33.380 --> 00:00:36.200 You see standard navigation menus, a chronological 00:00:36.200 --> 00:00:40.340 list of dates, a grid of raw numbers. Your first 00:00:40.340 --> 00:00:43.039 instinct might be to just close the tab and move 00:00:43.039 --> 00:00:45.859 on to something flashier. And honestly, nobody 00:00:45.859 --> 00:00:47.600 would blame you. It looks like a sterile spreadsheet. 00:00:47.960 --> 00:00:51.179 Exactly. But hold on. Today, we're going to show 00:00:51.179 --> 00:00:53.880 you how that seemingly sterile spreadsheet is 00:00:53.880 --> 00:00:56.859 actually a roadmap of human behavior. It's entirely 00:00:56.859 --> 00:00:59.020 too easy to look at a data table and see nothing 00:00:59.020 --> 00:01:01.979 but statistics. But numbers on a page, especially, 00:01:02.119 --> 00:01:04.359 you know, voting records, they're the footprints 00:01:04.359 --> 00:01:07.060 of a society making decisions over time. They 00:01:07.060 --> 00:01:09.379 really are. When you look closely at the architecture 00:01:09.379 --> 00:01:11.959 of a page like this, it reveals patterns that 00:01:11.959 --> 00:01:14.700 are entirely invisible if you're just skimming 00:01:14.700 --> 00:01:17.840 for a single fact. And that is exactly the mission 00:01:17.840 --> 00:01:20.150 for this deep dive. We're going to look beneath 00:01:20.150 --> 00:01:23.489 the surface of this specific data set. We want 00:01:23.489 --> 00:01:26.510 to uncover the hidden stories of political momentum. 00:01:26.709 --> 00:01:28.790 Right. The things hiding behind the percentages. 00:01:29.069 --> 00:01:32.010 Yes. We're going to look at the sheer, undeniable 00:01:32.010 --> 00:01:34.769 power of incumbency. And we're going to see how 00:01:34.769 --> 00:01:37.469 the very rules of American democracy shifted 00:01:37.469 --> 00:01:41.049 in a massive way over a century ago. All of which 00:01:41.049 --> 00:01:43.469 is hiding in plain sight on this one single page. 00:01:43.840 --> 00:01:46.280 OK, let's unpack this. Where exactly are we starting 00:01:46.280 --> 00:01:49.120 with this document? Well, our core timeline centers 00:01:49.120 --> 00:01:51.700 on the primary data table provided by the source. 00:01:52.079 --> 00:01:54.579 That table tracks the United States Senate election 00:01:54.579 --> 00:01:57.980 results in Wyoming from 1988 up through 2020. 00:01:58.319 --> 00:02:00.599 So that's really the meat of the data. Exactly. 00:02:00.900 --> 00:02:03.959 It details the candidates, their party affiliations, 00:02:04.079 --> 00:02:06.900 the total raw votes they received, and of course, 00:02:06.900 --> 00:02:08.979 the percentage breakdown of the race. But there's 00:02:08.979 --> 00:02:10.599 something else before we even get to that table, 00:02:10.659 --> 00:02:13.310 right? Yeah, before digging into that late 20th 00:02:13.310 --> 00:02:16.430 century data, the source presents a set of navigational 00:02:16.430 --> 00:02:19.550 clues in the sidebar menus. I love those sidebars. 00:02:19.610 --> 00:02:21.909 They're so easy to miss. Right. But these menus 00:02:21.909 --> 00:02:26.409 situate our 30 -year snapshot within a much broader 00:02:26.409 --> 00:02:29.229 institutional framework. one that actually dates 00:02:29.229 --> 00:02:32.050 all the way back to the 1700s. And that historical 00:02:32.050 --> 00:02:34.750 framework frames the modern table perfectly. 00:02:34.949 --> 00:02:37.189 It really does. If you look at the navigation 00:02:37.189 --> 00:02:39.789 sidebar under the heading United States Senate 00:02:39.789 --> 00:02:42.710 Elections, the page neatly divides the entire 00:02:42.710 --> 00:02:44.930 history of these elections into two distinct 00:02:44.930 --> 00:02:47.289 eras. Which is a very subtle formatting choice 00:02:47.289 --> 00:02:49.569 by the editors. It's just a couple of dates and 00:02:49.569 --> 00:02:51.889 parentheticals, but it represents a fundamental 00:02:51.889 --> 00:02:54.669 constitutional pivot. The division in the sidebar 00:02:54.669 --> 00:02:57.219 is stark. The first era is listed as spanning 00:02:57.219 --> 00:03:01.039 from 1788 to 1913. And right beneath those dates, 00:03:01.159 --> 00:03:03.479 there's this brief parenthetical note. It reads, 00:03:03.539 --> 00:03:06.800 elected by state legislatures. Right. Then there's 00:03:06.800 --> 00:03:08.919 a hard break in the timeline. The second era 00:03:08.919 --> 00:03:11.860 begins in 1914 and runs to the present day. And 00:03:11.860 --> 00:03:13.960 the parenthetical note for that era shifts to 00:03:13.960 --> 00:03:17.139 a new phrase. It says popular election. As a 00:03:17.139 --> 00:03:19.560 modern voter, it's almost jarring to read that. 00:03:19.719 --> 00:03:22.219 It really is. You just assume that going to the 00:03:22.219 --> 00:03:24.539 ballot box and picking your senator is this baked 00:03:24.539 --> 00:03:27.039 in feature of the system from day one. Right. 00:03:27.120 --> 00:03:29.240 Like it's just always been that way. But this 00:03:29.240 --> 00:03:32.460 sidebar is explicitly documenting that for a 00:03:32.460 --> 00:03:35.719 massive chunk of American history, that direct 00:03:35.719 --> 00:03:38.419 line between the citizen and the Senate simply 00:03:38.419 --> 00:03:41.039 did not exist. If we connect this to the bigger 00:03:41.039 --> 00:03:44.159 picture, it completely reorients how we interpret 00:03:44.159 --> 00:03:47.439 the data that follows. We take casting a ballot 00:03:47.439 --> 00:03:50.340 for a senator as an absolute given today. Oh, 00:03:50.379 --> 00:03:53.080 totally. But for the first 125 years of U .S. 00:03:53.080 --> 00:03:56.000 history, from 1788 all the way to 1913, everyday 00:03:56.000 --> 00:03:58.460 citizens in Wyoming and everywhere else in the 00:03:58.460 --> 00:04:00.979 country, for that matter, did not directly vote 00:04:00.979 --> 00:04:03.300 for their senators. The state legislatures held 00:04:03.300 --> 00:04:06.110 that power. Exactly. The source highlights this 00:04:06.110 --> 00:04:09.050 shift starting in 1914 as the foundational rule 00:04:09.050 --> 00:04:11.990 change of modern Senate elections. It marks the 00:04:11.990 --> 00:04:14.449 transition of the Senate from a body chosen by 00:04:14.449 --> 00:04:17.370 local lawmakers to a body chosen directly by 00:04:17.370 --> 00:04:19.290 the general public. And that transition to the 00:04:19.290 --> 00:04:22.449 popular vote is what makes the 1988 to 2020 data 00:04:22.449 --> 00:04:25.350 table so compelling to analyze. Because now we 00:04:25.350 --> 00:04:27.129 have a direct measurement of the public's will. 00:04:27.420 --> 00:04:30.379 Yes. Once the power is handed over to the voters, 00:04:30.519 --> 00:04:33.060 we get this clear mathematical record of how 00:04:33.060 --> 00:04:36.259 those voters behave, how their preferences solidify, 00:04:36.319 --> 00:04:38.759 and how a state's political identity evolves 00:04:38.759 --> 00:04:41.300 over decades. Which takes us right to the top 00:04:41.300 --> 00:04:44.060 row of our main data table. Right. The year is 00:04:44.060 --> 00:04:46.800 1988. We are looking at a race between Democrat 00:04:46.800 --> 00:04:49.519 John Vinnich and the Republican incumbent Malcolm 00:04:49.519 --> 00:04:52.879 Wallop. That 1988 race actually serves as the 00:04:52.879 --> 00:04:55.579 perfect baseline for us. Why is that? Largely 00:04:55.579 --> 00:04:58.079 because it's the statistical outlier of the entire 00:04:58.079 --> 00:05:00.420 modern data set provided. Let's look at that 00:05:00.420 --> 00:05:03.779 1988 row. The raw vote totals are almost identical. 00:05:04.220 --> 00:05:08.079 John Vinnich, the Democrat, pulled in 89 ,821 00:05:08.079 --> 00:05:11.199 votes. Which gave him 49 .6 % of the vote. Right. 00:05:11.240 --> 00:05:13.519 And Malcolm Wallop, the Republican, brought in 00:05:13.519 --> 00:05:18.220 91 ,143 votes. That gave him 50 .4%. That is 00:05:18.220 --> 00:05:21.069 a difference of barely 1 ,300. votes. In a statewide 00:05:21.069 --> 00:05:23.490 federal election, that is a razor -thin margin. 00:05:23.769 --> 00:05:26.910 It's a 1 ,322 vote difference, to be exact. It 00:05:26.910 --> 00:05:28.990 is effectively a fraction of a percent coin toss. 00:05:29.129 --> 00:05:31.810 A complete toss -up. It really represents a moment 00:05:31.810 --> 00:05:34.949 of peak competitive tension within the state's 00:05:34.949 --> 00:05:37.069 electorate. We're just reporting what the numbers 00:05:37.069 --> 00:05:40.110 say here impartially, but that is a highly competitive 00:05:40.110 --> 00:05:43.269 race by any metric. You could probably fit the 00:05:43.269 --> 00:05:46.050 deciding margin of voters into a large high school 00:05:46.050 --> 00:05:49.009 gymnasium. Easily. But here's where it gets really 00:05:49.009 --> 00:05:51.810 interesting. Look at the immediate trajectory 00:05:51.810 --> 00:05:55.180 of the data following that race. You might expect 00:05:55.180 --> 00:05:58.379 that after a nail -biter like that in 1988, the 00:05:58.379 --> 00:06:00.579 subsequent election cycles would feature similar 00:06:00.579 --> 00:06:02.600 down -to -the -wire battles. Right, like the 00:06:02.600 --> 00:06:04.920 state is just evenly divided and it's going to 00:06:04.920 --> 00:06:06.939 be a battleground every time. But the data shows 00:06:06.939 --> 00:06:09.860 the exact opposite trajectory. When we trace 00:06:09.860 --> 00:06:12.899 the numbers from 1990 onward, that competitive 00:06:12.899 --> 00:06:15.699 tension completely evaporates. It vanishes. Let's 00:06:15.699 --> 00:06:18.699 look at just two years later in 1990. The Democratic 00:06:18.699 --> 00:06:21.620 candidate, Kathy Helling, receives roughly 36 00:06:21.620 --> 00:06:23.959 % of the vote. And the Republican incumbent, 00:06:24.199 --> 00:06:27.759 Al Simpson, wins with 64%. The gap between the 00:06:27.759 --> 00:06:30.360 candidates widens from roughly 1 ,300 votes to 00:06:30.360 --> 00:06:33.240 a margin of tens of thousands. Instead of a fractional 00:06:33.240 --> 00:06:35.100 difference, we suddenly see a candidate pulling 00:06:35.100 --> 00:06:37.600 ahead by nearly 30 points. And the trend lines 00:06:37.600 --> 00:06:39.500 only accelerate from there as we move down the 00:06:39.500 --> 00:06:42.000 table. They do. By the time we reach the year 00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:44.730 2000, Democratic candidate Mel Logan receives 00:06:44.730 --> 00:06:48.610 just 22 % of the vote. Now? Yeah. The Republican 00:06:48.610 --> 00:06:52.269 incumbent, Craig L. Thomas, hits 74%, securing 00:06:52.269 --> 00:06:55.649 over 157 ,000 votes. So it's not just a trend, 00:06:55.689 --> 00:06:57.949 it's becoming a landslide. And as we move further 00:06:57.949 --> 00:07:01.129 down the timeline into 2008 and 2012, Republican 00:07:01.129 --> 00:07:04.569 candidates Mike Enzi and John Barrasso both hit 00:07:04.569 --> 00:07:07.569 an astonishing 76 % of the vote against their 00:07:07.569 --> 00:07:10.009 respective Democratic challengers. The ceiling 00:07:10.009 --> 00:07:12.689 for the challenger drops dramatically, cycle 00:07:12.689 --> 00:07:15.350 after cycle. Look at these names in the table. 00:07:15.509 --> 00:07:17.930 You have candidates like Joyce Corcoran in 2002 00:07:17.930 --> 00:07:22.290 getting 27%. Dale Groutage in 2006 getting 30%. 00:07:22.290 --> 00:07:25.290 And Charlie Hardy in 2014 dropping to just 17 00:07:25.290 --> 00:07:27.370 % of the vote. Looking purely at the trajectory 00:07:27.370 --> 00:07:29.589 of the numbers, you see a rapid solidification 00:07:29.589 --> 00:07:31.910 of voting patterns. A completely different picture 00:07:31.910 --> 00:07:35.529 from 1988. Exactly. Within a single decade. Wyoming 00:07:35.529 --> 00:07:38.069 Senate races transitioned from that fraction 00:07:38.069 --> 00:07:41.009 of a percent coin toss to commanding leads for 00:07:41.009 --> 00:07:43.449 the Republican candidates in the 70 percentile 00:07:43.449 --> 00:07:45.910 range. Again, just looking impartially at the 00:07:45.910 --> 00:07:48.110 data in the source, the shift is undeniable. 00:07:48.209 --> 00:07:51.250 The data documents a shift from a highly volatile 00:07:51.250 --> 00:07:54.069 electoral environment to an environment of absolute 00:07:54.069 --> 00:07:56.879 mathematical certainty. It is a profound shift 00:07:56.879 --> 00:07:59.800 in a relatively short window of time. But as 00:07:59.800 --> 00:08:02.060 I was tracking this unbroken streak of victories 00:08:02.060 --> 00:08:04.860 down the table, another distinct pattern emerged 00:08:04.860 --> 00:08:07.139 in the winners column. Oh, the three little letters. 00:08:07.319 --> 00:08:10.939 Yes. Almost every single winning name from 1988 00:08:10.939 --> 00:08:14.220 onward has the ink tag right next to it, standing 00:08:14.220 --> 00:08:16.930 for incumbent. Looking at this table. The incumbent 00:08:16.930 --> 00:08:19.050 tag might as well be an invincibility cloak. 00:08:19.269 --> 00:08:21.509 It really is. It is perhaps the most powerful 00:08:21.509 --> 00:08:24.350 force documented in this entire source. Out of 00:08:24.350 --> 00:08:27.189 the 13 total races detailed between 1988 and 00:08:27.189 --> 00:08:30.009 2020, nine were won by sitting incumbents. Nine 00:08:30.009 --> 00:08:32.289 out of 13. You see the exact same names locking 00:08:32.289 --> 00:08:34.970 in their positions cycle after cycle. Malcolm 00:08:34.970 --> 00:08:38.129 Wallop defends his seat in 1988. Al Simpson defends 00:08:38.129 --> 00:08:41.899 in 1990. Craig L. Thomas wins in 1994 and then 00:08:41.899 --> 00:08:44.879 defends that seat as an incumbent in 2000 -2006. 00:08:45.080 --> 00:08:48.279 Mike Enzi wins in 1996 and defends it in 2002 00:08:48.279 --> 00:08:51.980 -2008 and 2014. And John Barrasso wins in 2008 00:08:51.980 --> 00:08:56.139 and defends in 2012 and 2018. It's clockwork. 00:08:56.340 --> 00:08:58.980 It is. But wait, you mentioned 9 out of 13 races 00:08:58.980 --> 00:09:01.740 went to incumbents. That leaves a few gaps in 00:09:01.740 --> 00:09:03.860 the timeline where the seat was entirely open. 00:09:04.000 --> 00:09:05.610 Right, where there was no incumbent. I would 00:09:05.610 --> 00:09:08.789 assume those open years without a sitting politician 00:09:08.789 --> 00:09:11.389 defending the office would look more like that 00:09:11.389 --> 00:09:14.409 1988 nail biter. But the numbers here tell a 00:09:14.409 --> 00:09:16.590 slightly different story. We can isolate those 00:09:16.590 --> 00:09:19.250 specific open seat elections in the data set. 00:09:19.370 --> 00:09:22.610 They happened in 1994, 1996 and 2020. OK, let's 00:09:22.610 --> 00:09:24.909 look at 1994. Mike Sullivan ran against Craig 00:09:24.909 --> 00:09:27.029 L. Thomas for an open seat. And Thomas won with 00:09:27.029 --> 00:09:30.299 59 percent of the vote. Then in 1996, Kathy Karpin 00:09:30.299 --> 00:09:33.679 ran against Mike Enzi. Enzi won with 54%. And 00:09:33.679 --> 00:09:36.240 skipping ahead to 2020, Marav Ben -David ran 00:09:36.240 --> 00:09:38.559 against Cynthia Loomis. Where Loomis secured 00:09:38.559 --> 00:09:41.679 the seat with 72 % of the vote. So even without 00:09:41.679 --> 00:09:43.740 the built -in advantage of already holding the 00:09:43.740 --> 00:09:46.080 office, the candidates from the dominant party 00:09:46.080 --> 00:09:48.740 still comfortably secured the seats. They did. 00:09:48.879 --> 00:09:51.320 But those numbers do highlight a fascinating 00:09:51.320 --> 00:09:54.419 nuance in the momentum. What do you mean? Well, 00:09:54.440 --> 00:09:58.039 look at 94 and 96. Those open seat margins are 00:09:58.039 --> 00:10:01.100 in the mid -50s. That's noticeably lower than 00:10:01.100 --> 00:10:03.299 the incumbent victories in the 70s that immediately 00:10:03.299 --> 00:10:06.440 follow them. Ah, I see. That makes me think of 00:10:06.440 --> 00:10:09.039 an analogy to help visualize the sheer force 00:10:09.039 --> 00:10:11.799 of this data. I want you to think of incumbency 00:10:11.799 --> 00:10:14.200 like a moving freight train. A freight train. 00:10:14.860 --> 00:10:17.080 Okay, the physics of that actually map quite 00:10:17.080 --> 00:10:19.759 well to electoral momentum. Right. Getting an 00:10:19.759 --> 00:10:22.200 open seat is like trying to get a massive train 00:10:22.200 --> 00:10:24.720 moving from a dead stop. It takes an incredible 00:10:24.720 --> 00:10:27.860 amount of energy, resources, and fuel. The slightly 00:10:27.860 --> 00:10:31.100 lower margins of victory, like that 54 or 59 00:10:31.100 --> 00:10:33.940 percent, show that it is a heavier lift to win 00:10:33.940 --> 00:10:36.740 when you're starting from zero. Exactly. But 00:10:36.740 --> 00:10:39.480 once that politician is in the seat, they become 00:10:39.480 --> 00:10:42.139 the incumbent. The train is moving down the track. 00:10:42.279 --> 00:10:45.019 We have the machinery of the office, the established 00:10:45.019 --> 00:10:47.240 donor networks, the universal name recognition. 00:10:47.909 --> 00:10:51.129 And trying to unseat them is like trying to stand 00:10:51.129 --> 00:10:53.389 on the tracks and push a moving freight train 00:10:53.389 --> 00:10:56.389 backward. It's nearly impossible. The repetitive 00:10:56.389 --> 00:10:58.629 streak of incumbent victories in this source 00:10:58.629 --> 00:11:01.710 hitting 70, 73, 76 percent cycle after cycle 00:11:01.710 --> 00:11:05.029 clearly demonstrates how hard it is to stop that 00:11:05.029 --> 00:11:07.409 train once it has reached cruising speed. The 00:11:07.409 --> 00:11:09.610 incumbent advantage operates as a compounding 00:11:09.610 --> 00:11:13.519 force in this data set. It does. However, this 00:11:13.519 --> 00:11:16.120 established predictability introduces a fascinating 00:11:16.120 --> 00:11:19.539 paradox regarding voter behavior. Oh, a paradox. 00:11:19.860 --> 00:11:23.259 Yeah. If the percentages become so stable, if 00:11:23.259 --> 00:11:24.899 the electorate knows the freight train is going 00:11:24.899 --> 00:11:27.700 to keep rolling with Sully. 70 % of the vote 00:11:27.700 --> 00:11:29.620 standard political theory might suggest that 00:11:29.620 --> 00:11:31.679 voter interest would decline. Right. People might 00:11:31.679 --> 00:11:33.559 start showing up to the polls if the outcome 00:11:33.559 --> 00:11:36.220 feels predetermined. Why bother voting if you 00:11:36.220 --> 00:11:38.460 already know the results? Exactly. But standing 00:11:38.460 --> 00:11:41.220 down the raw vote totals, I noticed an anomaly 00:11:41.220 --> 00:11:43.659 that proves the exact opposite is happening here. 00:11:43.840 --> 00:11:47.639 Let's isolate the year 2008. 2008 is a very interesting 00:11:47.639 --> 00:11:49.940 year in this table. There's a strange formatting 00:11:49.940 --> 00:11:52.799 choice. There are actually two distinct elections 00:11:52.799 --> 00:11:56.090 listed for the exact same year. The source explains 00:11:56.090 --> 00:11:59.110 this 2008 double feature quite clearly, actually. 00:11:59.389 --> 00:12:02.429 One of the 2008 entries is explicitly marked 00:12:02.429 --> 00:12:05.750 as a special election. Right, so special, right 00:12:05.750 --> 00:12:07.710 in parenthesis. This special election was won 00:12:07.710 --> 00:12:10.789 by John Barrasso. He secured 73 % of the vote 00:12:10.789 --> 00:12:13.929 against Nick Carter's 27%. But then the very 00:12:13.929 --> 00:12:17.730 next line is the regular 2008 election. Correct. 00:12:17.850 --> 00:12:20.769 Where incumbent Mike Enzi secured 76 percent 00:12:20.769 --> 00:12:23.029 of the vote against Chris Rothfuss's 24 percent. 00:12:23.190 --> 00:12:25.590 And the source's navigation sidebar is designed 00:12:25.590 --> 00:12:28.470 to explicitly track these even year specials 00:12:28.470 --> 00:12:31.250 alongside the regular election cycles. Seeing 00:12:31.250 --> 00:12:34.169 two massive statewide federal races happening 00:12:34.169 --> 00:12:36.850 side by side on the same ballot is a highly unique 00:12:36.850 --> 00:12:39.129 data point. It is. But the element that truly 00:12:39.129 --> 00:12:41.370 stands out to me about 2008 and the years that 00:12:41.370 --> 00:12:44.009 follow it is. The sheer volume of participation. 00:12:44.409 --> 00:12:46.730 The raw numbers. Yes. The percentage spreads 00:12:46.730 --> 00:12:48.870 might look identical year after year, just hovering 00:12:48.870 --> 00:12:51.710 in that 70 -30 split. But the raw numbers tell 00:12:51.710 --> 00:12:54.629 a story of massive undeniable growth. Let's rewind 00:12:54.629 --> 00:12:57.529 back to that 1988 baseline for a second. Okay. 00:12:57.590 --> 00:13:00.070 If you add the raw votes together for Vinnich 00:13:00.070 --> 00:13:04.429 and Wallop, you get roughly 180 ,000 total votes 00:13:04.429 --> 00:13:09.230 cast in the state. 180 ,964 total votes in 1988, 00:13:09.629 --> 00:13:11.750 to be precise. No. Fast forward to the bottom 00:13:11.750 --> 00:13:14.429 of our table, the year 2020. This is the open 00:13:14.429 --> 00:13:16.649 seat race between Murat Ben -David and Cynthia 00:13:16.649 --> 00:13:20.490 Loomis. Ben -David pulled in roughly 72 ,700 00:13:20.490 --> 00:13:24.889 votes. Loomis brought in over 198 ,000 votes. 00:13:25.110 --> 00:13:27.629 So if you add those together. Total turnout surged 00:13:27.629 --> 00:13:31.049 to over 270 ,000 votes. What's fascinating here 00:13:31.049 --> 00:13:34.210 is the duality of the data. How so? On one hand, 00:13:34.210 --> 00:13:36.070 the political outcome demonstrates incredible 00:13:36.070 --> 00:13:39.000 stability. The percentage margin stayed remarkably 00:13:39.000 --> 00:13:41.620 stable in the 70 percentile range during the 00:13:41.620 --> 00:13:43.519 later years of the data set. Very predictable. 00:13:43.659 --> 00:13:45.580 But beneath that static percentage, the dynamic 00:13:45.580 --> 00:13:47.960 reality is that the raw number of citizens participating 00:13:47.960 --> 00:13:50.399 grew by leaps and bounds. An increase from roughly 00:13:50.399 --> 00:13:53.799 180 ,000 to over 270 ,000. That is a surge of 00:13:53.799 --> 00:13:56.679 nearly 100 ,000 voters in a state with a historically 00:13:56.679 --> 00:14:00.200 small population. It's massive. It is. The narrative 00:14:00.200 --> 00:14:02.799 that mathematically predictable elections automatically 00:14:02.799 --> 00:14:07.039 lead to widespread voter apathy is directly contradicted 00:14:07.039 --> 00:14:10.120 by the source material. Civic engagement actually 00:14:10.120 --> 00:14:12.820 deepened as the margins widened. It really forces 00:14:12.820 --> 00:14:15.580 you to rethink the relationship between competitiveness 00:14:15.580 --> 00:14:18.159 and turnout. People aren't just voting because 00:14:18.159 --> 00:14:20.480 they think their single ballot will be the tiebreaker. 00:14:20.700 --> 00:14:22.100 Right. They aren't waiting for another 1988. 00:14:22.500 --> 00:14:24.659 Exactly. They are voting to participate in the 00:14:24.659 --> 00:14:26.799 established momentum of their state. It's about 00:14:26.799 --> 00:14:29.799 being part of the process. So we have covered 00:14:29.799 --> 00:14:32.740 a massive amount of ground here, from a century 00:14:32.740 --> 00:14:35.320 -old constitutional rule change and a 1 ,300 00:14:35.320 --> 00:14:37.960 -vote cliffhanger. To the unstoppable freight 00:14:37.960 --> 00:14:40.879 train of incumbency. And a massive counterintuitive 00:14:40.879 --> 00:14:43.139 surge in voter turnout. So what does this all 00:14:43.139 --> 00:14:45.500 mean? If we synthesize this entire deep dive, 00:14:45.700 --> 00:14:48.360 the overarching takeaway is that this single 00:14:48.360 --> 00:14:51.720 Wikipedia table transcends being just a list 00:14:51.720 --> 00:14:53.899 of names and numbers. It's far more than a spreadsheet. 00:14:54.360 --> 00:14:57.340 It functions as a clear empirical timeline of 00:14:57.340 --> 00:14:59.759 political evolution. It shows us the precise 00:14:59.759 --> 00:15:02.980 window where a state's political identity rapidly 00:15:02.980 --> 00:15:06.600 solidifies over a 30 -year period. And it mathematically 00:15:06.600 --> 00:15:10.080 proves the undeniable compounding advantage of 00:15:10.080 --> 00:15:12.519 holding an office once you win it. And perhaps 00:15:12.519 --> 00:15:15.759 most importantly, it maps a complex evolution 00:15:15.759 --> 00:15:18.960 of voter turnout, showing a populace that became 00:15:18.960 --> 00:15:21.379 increasingly engaged in the democratic process. 00:15:21.740 --> 00:15:24.940 A popular vote process that... As the sidebar 00:15:24.940 --> 00:15:26.960 reminded us at the very beginning, they were 00:15:26.960 --> 00:15:30.139 entirely excluded from for the first 125 years 00:15:30.139 --> 00:15:32.379 of the nation's history. It gives you a profound 00:15:32.379 --> 00:15:35.100 appreciation for the meticulous cataloging happening 00:15:35.100 --> 00:15:37.779 in these databases. It really does. The structure 00:15:37.779 --> 00:15:40.299 of the page tells the story just as loudly as 00:15:40.299 --> 00:15:42.440 the numbers do. But before we wrap up, I want 00:15:42.440 --> 00:15:44.799 to leave you with a final thought. Yeah, drawn 00:15:44.799 --> 00:15:47.580 directly from one last very subtle detail tucked 00:15:47.580 --> 00:15:49.379 away in the source material. There is always 00:15:49.379 --> 00:15:51.519 one more detail hiding in the architecture of 00:15:51.519 --> 00:15:53.990 the page. Always. Think back to that navigation 00:15:53.990 --> 00:15:56.289 box we discussed at the very beginning, the one 00:15:56.289 --> 00:15:58.610 that split history into the legislative era and 00:15:58.610 --> 00:16:02.029 the popular vote era. Right. 1788 to 1913 and 00:16:02.029 --> 00:16:04.690 then 1914 to present. Underneath the section 00:16:04.690 --> 00:16:07.649 for 1914 present, there is a whole separate category 00:16:07.649 --> 00:16:10.629 listed. It is simply titled odd year specials. 00:16:10.629 --> 00:16:13.330 The source lists a specific cadence of them. 00:16:14.100 --> 00:16:19.240 Years like 1913, 1921, 1925, 1931. And skipping 00:16:19.240 --> 00:16:23.100 ahead, you see 1974, 75, 2013, and 2017. And 00:16:23.100 --> 00:16:25.580 I want you to... Ponder this. We just spent this 00:16:25.580 --> 00:16:29.159 entire deep dive analyzing how incredibly stable 00:16:29.159 --> 00:16:32.139 and predictable the regular even year incumbent 00:16:32.139 --> 00:16:34.659 victories are in this data set. The freight train 00:16:34.659 --> 00:16:37.179 just keeps rolling on a reliable six year schedule. 00:16:37.379 --> 00:16:39.940 Protected by the power of incumbency and a highly 00:16:39.940 --> 00:16:42.279 engaged voting base. Exactly. But that list of 00:16:42.279 --> 00:16:44.700 odd year specials is sitting right there in the 00:16:44.700 --> 00:16:46.840 sidebar, proving that the schedule is fragile. 00:16:47.039 --> 00:16:49.620 What kind of sudden unexpected event causes a 00:16:49.620 --> 00:16:51.840 United States Senate seat to abruptly open up 00:16:51.840 --> 00:16:54.100 in an odd year? Completely. bypassing the normal 00:16:54.100 --> 00:16:56.220 predictable election cycle. Right. And how does 00:16:56.220 --> 00:16:59.120 that sudden injection of chaos disrupt the very 00:16:59.120 --> 00:17:01.159 political momentum and mathematical certainty 00:17:01.159 --> 00:17:02.879 we just spent all this time exploring? It is 00:17:02.879 --> 00:17:04.940 a stark reminder that no matter how stable and 00:17:04.940 --> 00:17:07.440 unyielding the data looks on a screen, the real 00:17:07.440 --> 00:17:09.640 world is always capable of throwing a wrench 00:17:09.640 --> 00:17:12.119 into the gears. It's a critical question to reflect 00:17:12.119 --> 00:17:15.529 on. Data perfectly captures the solidifying trends 00:17:15.529 --> 00:17:18.470 of the past, but the architecture of the system 00:17:18.470 --> 00:17:21.410 always leaves room for the unpredictable disruptions 00:17:21.410 --> 00:17:23.789 of the future. Thank you so much for joining 00:17:23.789 --> 00:17:25.930 us on this deep dive today. It's been a fascinating 00:17:25.930 --> 00:17:28.289 look at the numbers behind the names. We hope 00:17:28.289 --> 00:17:30.109 we've changed the way you look at a simple table 00:17:30.109 --> 00:17:32.769 of numbers and the sidebars that surround them. 00:17:32.869 --> 00:17:35.289 Keep questioning the data, keep looking for the 00:17:35.289 --> 00:17:38.250 hidden momentum, and most importantly, keep exploring. 00:17:38.829 --> 00:17:40.309 We will catch you next time.