Welcome to the show. It is fantastic to have
you joining us. We actually have a custom -tailored
deep dive prepared specifically for you today.
And the mission we're embarking on is actually
quite a unique challenge. It really is. I mean,
we're taking a document that, on its surface,
looks incredibly simple. Maybe even a little
dry, honestly. Yeah, exactly. Just a raw list
of names and dates. But we are going to extract
the hidden stories, the political shifts, the
historical quirks, and really just the sheer
human unpredictability that's hiding right there
in the columns and rows. Because, you know, sometimes
the most captivating narratives aren't. They
aren't spelled out in these dramatic biographies
or sweeping historical paragraphs. No, they're
buried in the raw data. Yeah. In spreadsheets
and timelines and in seemingly straightforward
lists. When you really learn how to read the
negative space in a data set. Oh, an entire world
opens up. It does. So to set the stage for you,
you should know our only source for today's deep
dive is a Wikipedia list. Specifically, the list
of United States senators from Oklahoma. That
is it. No outside historical textbooks, no supplementary
biographies, no external context. We are exclusively
analyzing the raw data provided in this single
document. Just the names, the dates, the electoral
histories and those tiny, easily overlooked notes
attached to specific terms. Which sounds restrictive,
I know. It does sound restrictive. But confining
ourselves to a simple list of names and dates
actually provides a, well, a phenomenal chronological
map of a state's history. Yeah, because when
you look closely at these timelines. The names
stop being just a roster. You start seeing the
friction. Exactly. You notice the gaps. The sudden
overlaps. The abrupt truncations of decades -long
careers. Okay, let's unpack this because right
out of the gate, the very first data point gives
us a fantastic anomaly. It really does. According
to our source document, the state of Oklahoma
was officially admitted to the union on November
16, 1907. But when you look at the actual timeline
mapping out the senators, the state didn't elect
its inaugural senators until December 11th, 1907.
What's fascinating here is that for the very
first month of its existence as an official state
in the union, Oklahoma had completely vacant
Senate seats. Completely vacant. Yeah. The data
explicitly records the status as vacant from
November 16th to December 11. It even comes complete
with a note indicating that the state just didn't
elect its senators until nearly a month after
statehood was achieved. I mean, think about the
logistical vulnerability of that for a moment.
Oh, it's wild. A brand new state is finally integrated
into the country. But for roughly four weeks,
it has absolutely zero voice in her upper chamber
of the federal legislature. Just blinks. Spaces.
Literally blank spaces where their representation
is supposed to be. It's like it's like showing
up for your first day at a brand new job, but
they don't give you a desk or a computer login
for the first month. That's a great analogy.
It's a stark reminder of how bureaucratic mechanics
rarely align perfectly with, you know, celebratory
historical milestones. Right. The statehood declaration
happens on one specific day with all the fanfare.
But the actual machinery of electing and seating
politicians lags behind. It sets a precedent
for the entire document. Honestly, it really
does. Because the mechanics of the Senate dictate.
the rhythm of everything that follows on this
list. Yeah. And you already know the Senate operates
on staggered classes, right? Right. So the whole
chamber isn't empty at once. Exactly. It functions
as a continuous body, like a rotating shift schedule
at a hospital or a 24 -hour restaurant. Yeah.
Making sure someone is always on the clock. Precisely.
But when you look at Oklahoma's specific mapping
for class two and class three seats here, you
can actually trace the exact moments where unexpected
events jam those gears. In Oklahoma's case, observing
those two classes side by side reveals just how
asynchronous they're supposed to be. Yeah. Our
source document lays out the modern electoral
cycle perfectly. For class two, the U .S. senators
belong to an electoral cycle recently contested
in 2008, 2014, 2020. And then there's a special
election in 2022. And the next regular election
for this class is slated for 2026. Right. Meanwhile,
the class three seat belongs to a completely
different cycle. Completely different. That one
was recently contested in 2010, then a special
election in 2014, followed by regular elections
in 2016 and 2022. The next election for Class
3 will be in 2028. So normally these two lanes
run parallel. They alternate election years so
the state's delegation is never fully overturned
in a single night. But the data shows us exactly
what happens when that carefully staggered system
breaks down. It does. Imagine being a voter trying
to keep track of this. You look at those recent
years, 2014 and again in 2022, and you see special
elections suddenly forcing both classes onto
the ballot simultaneously. The intended asynchronous
nature of the Senate is completely overridden.
Suddenly, a voter is electing their entire Senate
delegation at the exact same time. It fundamentally
alters the political gravity of a state for that
election cycle. It really does. And looking at
the very beginning of the state's history shows
us who actually inaugurated those two staggered
lanes. Right. Going back to December 1907. The
first delegation consisted of Robert L. Owen
and Thomas Gore. OK, so Robert L. Owen takes
the class two seat. He enters as a Democrat.
And looking at his electoral history, he establishes
a very solid, continuous baseline. Very stable.
He's elected in 1907, reelected in 1913, reelected
again in 1918. And then the notes indicate he
simply retired, ending his time in office on
March 4th, 1925. It's a clean, conventional political
arc. It is. And really, it is a sea of blue in
those early decades. Looking at these early names,
the state is completely dominated by the Democratic
Party. Oh, absolutely. And actually, as a quick
reminder for you listening, our goal today is
just to read the map. We aren't taking political
sides or diving into party platforms. Right.
No endorsements here. Exactly. We are simply
tracking how this raw Wikipedia data shifts from
one side of the aisle to the other over a century.
We impartially report that. historical trends
precisely as they appear in the text. Which brings
us to Owens counterpart in that first delegation.
Thomas Gore. Yes. Here's where it gets really
interesting. I love this part. Thomas Gore's
path through the Senate data looks like a glitch
in the matrix. It really does. He takes the class
three seat in 1907 as a Democrat. The data shows
him getting reelected in 1909 and then reelected
again in 1914. But then his timeline hits a sudden
wall. A brick wall. In 1920, the electoral history
note simply reads, Lost Renomination. His first
run concludes on March 4, 1921. Now, from a purely
statistical perspective, losing a renomination
usually marks the permanent end of a political
timeline in this kind of data set. Right. You're
usually done. A Republican named John W. Harold
takes that class three seat in 1921. And conventionally,
you would expect Thomas Gore to fade entirely
from the records. Just become a footnote. Exactly.
But if you keep scanning down the columns of
the 1920s, you realize Gore didn't just disappear.
He essentially vanishes for a decade and then
suddenly he reappears in the data. He does. In
1930, Thomas Gore is elected to the Senate again,
but he doesn't return to his old class three
seat. No, he is elected as a class two senator.
He completely switches lanes. Serving from March
4, 1931 to January 3, 1937. I mean, it requires
a tremendous amount of calculated patience to
pull that off. Oh, the resilience is incredible.
He had to wait out the entombance, completely
re -engineer his coalition after 10 years out
of federal office, and campaign for an entirely
different seat cycle. And then, at the end of
that 1937 term, history repeats itself. Sadly,
yes. The notes for his 1936 electoral history
state, once again, lost renomination. The emotional
whiplash hiding behind those stark dates is just...
Think about it. 1907 to 1921, followed by a decade
in their oldness, and then 1931 to 1937. You
pour your life into a role for 14 years, lose
it, wait a full decade, fight your way back in
for one more term, only to be ousted by your
own party a second time. It's brutal. It is a
profound demonstration of resilience that you
only catch if you are actively comparing the
separate class columns. And eventually, Gore's
turbulent timeline gives way to a period defined
by incredibly dominant long -term stability.
As we move into the mid -century records, the
data reveals a profound streak of democratic
longevity. Yeah, take Elmer Thomas, for example.
He was a Democrat who captured the class three
seat in 1926. He held on to that position from
March 4th, 1927, all the way to January 3, 1951.
That is a massive 24 -year block of continuous
representation. Racking up re -elections in 1932,
1938, and 1944, before finally losing his re
-nomination. And the person who took over that
class three seat immediately established his
own era of dominance. Mike Monroney, another
Democrat, served from January 3, 1951 to January
3, 1969. 18 years in office. Successfully navigating
reelections in 1956 and 1962. So when you combine
Thomas and Monroney, you have two men controlling
that single class three seat for over four decades.
That's an astonishing level of consistency for
one seat. But while class three was locked down
in decades of stability. The class two lane was
about to experience one of the most chaotic rapid
fire disruptions documented in the entire source.
This is where the timeline really fractures.
Let's trace the data on Robert S. Kerr. He's
a Democrat who wins the class two seat in 1948,
taking office in 1949. And he follows the established
pattern of his era, securing reelections in 1954
and 1960. He appears to be yet another multi
-term incumbent settling in for the long haul.
But then. His electoral history abruptly ends
with a single word. Died. Robert S. Kerr died
in office on January 1st, 1963. If we connect
this to the bigger picture, a sudden death in
office does immense damage to the structural
integrity of the Senate's staggered cycles. Oh,
absolutely. The mechanical scramble that follows
is intense. Let's break down exactly how this
single tragic data point on New Year's Day triggered
a domino effect of political turbulence. Tracing
the exact dates in the data set. really highlights
the chaos for the listener. Kerr dies on January
1st. From January 1st, 1963 to January 7th, 1963,
the seat is officially documented as vacant.
So for almost a week, the state is down a senator.
Down a senator scrambling to figure out what
to do. Then on January 7th, J. Howard Edmondson,
a Democrat, is appointed to continue Kerr's term.
But the data set makes a clear distinction between
an appointed senator and an elected one. Right,
because the notes reveal Edmondson's last nomination
to finish Kerr's term. His brief tenure ends
on November 3rd, 1964. And on that exact same
day, November 3rd, 1964, the voters elect Fred
R. Harris, also a Democrat, to finish out the
remainder of Kerr's original term. Then Harris
goes on to be reelected in his own right in 1966,
finally bringing stability back to the seat before
he retires in 1973. When you step back and look
at that sequence, it is staggering. We're talking
about a single Senate seat. In a span of less
than two years, between January 1963 and November
1964, that one specific seat rotated through
four entirely different statuses. It was held
by a veteran senator. Then it was completely
vacant. Then it was occupied by an appointed
placeholder who couldn't secure the nomination.
And finally, it was claimed by a newly elected
senator. Decades of planned electoral cycles
were essentially rewritten overnight. It perfectly
illustrates how fragile these political timelines
truly are. But as we move further down the list
into the modern era, the data shifts again. It
does. The mid -century turbulence was largely
triggered by unexpected deaths or electoral losses.
The modern era of Oklahoma senators, however,
is defined by a completely different kind of
disruption. Individuals deciding to walk away
on their own terms. Exactly. The sheer volume
of modern resignations is a wildly surprising
pattern when you analyze the raw data. David
Boren is the perfect starting point for this
trend. He is a Democrat occupying the class two
seat. Elected in 1978, he serves a very long,
stable tenure from January 3, 1979, right up
until November 15, 1994. And the electoral history
notes give us the precise, highly unusual reason
for his sudden departure. He didn't lose his
reelection campaign. He didn't pass away. He
resigned specifically to become the president
of the University of Oklahoma. Which is fascinating.
You have a prominent national political career.
You cruise through realizations in 1984 and 1990.
And you voluntarily step away from the United
States Senate to go run a university. And just
as we saw with Kerr's death decades earlier,
Boren's resignation forces the system to reset.
We see another gap appear in the data set. The
seat is listed as vacant from November 15th,
1994 to November 17th, 1994. It's a much tighter
turnaround. this time. Just a two -day gap compared
to the week -long vacancy after Kerr's passing.
And on November 17, Jim Inhofe, a Republican,
is elected to finish Boren's term. Jim Inhofe's
entry into the data set marks the beginning of
a massive era. Truly massive. Our source explicitly
notes that he becomes Oklahoma's longest -serving
senator. After taking over that fractured term
in November 1994, he absolutely locks down the
class two seat for a generation. The data shows
him winning reelection in 1996, 2002, 2008, 2014
and 2020. He serves continuously all the way
to January 3, 2023. Nearly 30 years of uninterrupted
representation. Yet even the longest serving
senator in the state's entire history eventually
succumbs to the modern pattern we are tracking.
Yep. Look closely at the final entry of Inhofe's
massive timeline. The notes for his 2020 reelection
term end abruptly with one word, resigned. He
voluntarily stepped down before finishing his
final six -year term. Which means the system
has to scramble to fill the gap once again. Mark
Wayne Mullen, a Republican, is elected in 2022
to finish out Inhofe's term, officially taking
office on January 3, 2023. And this pattern of
midterm resignations isn't isolated to class
two either. It perfectly mirrors what happened
over in the class three lane just a few years
prior. Let's look at Tom Coburn's data. He was
a Republican elected in 2004, serving from January
3, 2005. He secures reelection in 2010. But the
notes for that 2010 term also conclude with resigned.
Coburn's resignation triggers the same mechanical
response. James Lankford, a Republican, is elected
in 2014 specifically to finish Coburn's truncated
term. Lankford takes office on January 3, 2015,
and then goes on to secure his own reelection
in 2016 and 2022. Zooming out from these individual
resignations, there is a massive overarching
macro trend visible in the data. There is. We
started this deep dive looking at the early 1900s,
observing an era completely saturated by Democrats.
Names like Robert L. Owen, Thomas Gore, Elmer
Thomas, and Mike Monroney controlling the seats
for decades. Well, when you scan down to the
modern era on this list, it is a stark, absolute
contrast. The later entries are exclusively Republican.
Don Nichols, Tom Coburn, and James Lankford dominate
Class 3. Dewey F. Bartlett, Jim Inhofe, and Mark
Wayne Mullen occupy Class 2. The entire color
palette of the data table fundamentally flips
from one side of the political spectrum to the
other over the course of the century. That complete
shift brings us directly to the current state
of affairs as documented in our source. The source
lists the current delegation ordered by seniority.
We have James Lankford serving since 2015 and
Mark Wayne Mullen serving since 2023. Both are
Republicans. And interestingly, based on everything
we just analyzed, both of the current sitting
senators initially entered the Senate specifically
to clean up the timeline after a predecessor
resigned midterm. It is a remarkable bit of historical
symmetry. It really is. The source document also
briefly pans out to give us the broader context
of Oklahoma's current representation in Washington.
Beyond the two Senate seats, the state's congressional
delegation includes five representatives in the
House ordered by district. Running through those
names quickly, the state is represented by Kevin
Hearn, Josh Brecking, Frank Lucas, Tom Cole,
and Stephanie Bice. All five are listed as Republicans,
perfectly aligning with the total party shift
we tracked in the modern Senate data set. That
broader House context firmly frames the state's
current political reality. Yes, it does. So what
does this all mean? We look at this list today.
We see the current delegation of Lankford and
Mullen, and it projects an image. of solid stability
the seats are filled the party alignment is uniform
across both chambers right what it means is that
current stability is an illusion born out of
past volatility the current arrangement only
exists because of special elections triggered
by sudden resignations just as previous eras
were defined by sudden deaths 10 -year comebacks
and massive party shifts The mechanics of the
Senate dictate that the machine never stops moving.
The data set tells us the table is already set
for the next potential disruption, with the Class
2 election to be determined in 2026 and Class
3 in 2028. It is genuinely incredible how much
human history is packed into a single Wikipedia
page if you just take the time to calculate the
gaps and overlaps. It really is. We want to thank
you so much for going on this journey with us
through a century of political data. We started
with what looked like a dry list of names and
dates, but by paying attention to the margins,
we uncovered massive resilience. Like Thomas
Gore bouncing back a decade later in a completely
different seat. We tracked the domino effect
of a single New Year's Day tragedy with Robert
S. Kerr, watching a carefully planned electoral
cycle collapse into years of appointments and
special elections. And we analyzed the modern
trend of massive power shifts driven entirely
by personal decisions, like a senator resigning
to run a university. It has been an absolute
blast digging through this data set with you.
This raises an important question, though, something
for you to ponder long after we sign off. OK,
let's hear it. When we study history, we naturally
focus on the names of the winners. We look at
who held the power and for how long. But when
you really read the footnotes of a list like
this, when you see all the tags for lost renomination,
retired and resigned. it makes you wonder how
much of history is actually shaped not by the
people who win the seats, but by the precise
timing of when and why they decide to leave them.
That is a phenomenal thought to leave on. Thank
you so much for joining us for this deep dive.
We hope you enjoyed exploring the data as much
as we did. Stay curious, keep asking questions,
and keep exploring the hidden stories buried
inside everyday information. Until next time.