Welcome in, everyone. And when I say everyone,
I mean you. Yeah, exactly. Yes, you listening
right now. We have custom tailored today's deep
dive just for you. You know, we love taking a
stack of research notes, raw data, and just mining
it for those real gems of insight. Oh, absolutely.
And today we are diving into a source that, well,
on the surface, it might just look like a giant
spreadsheet. We are looking at a comprehensive
Wikipedia data set detailing the complete history
of United States Senate elections in the state
of Alaska. It's phenomenal data set, truly a
masterclass in how raw numbers can, you know,
tell an incredibly dramatic story. I couldn't
agree more. Now, I know what you might be thinking.
A chronological list of election returns. Isn't
that just a bunch of dry historical math? Right.
It sounds a bit dull at first. But trust me,
this particular list is an absolute treasure
trove of political wildcards. looking at expected
party line votes we are talking about shocking
down to the wire upsets that no one saw coming
oh the upsets are wild we are looking at a legitimately
historic write -in campaign that defied every
conventional political odd and we're even digging
into brand new voting mechanics that completely
alter the fundamental rules of how an election
is actually won it is uh it's anything but dry
But before we jump into those numbers, I do need
to establish some very important context for
you, our listener. As we go through the source
material, we are going to be discussing politically
charged content. Always important to know. Definitely.
The data we are analyzing involves the Democratic
Party, the Republican Party, the Libertarian
Party, the Green Party, and various independent
candidates. I want to be absolutely clear right
at the top that we are not endorsing any viewpoints,
any political parties, or any of the candidates
mentioned. Right. Our role here is strictly to
act as impartial guides. We are simply reporting
the factual data exactly as it is contained in
the original source material. Perfectly said.
We are just here for the math and the fascinating
narrative those numbers reveal over time. Okay,
let's unpack this. So to really understand the
narrative arc in this data set, we have to look
at Alaska's unique timeline. As we know, U .S.
senators are divided into classes, and Alaska
holds the Class 2 and Class 3 seats, serving
those staggered six -year terms. Right. But because
Alaska didn't officially join the union until
1959, their timeline completely bypassed the
era before the 17th Amendment. Right. The 1913
Amendment, the one that mandated direct voter
election of senators rather than letting state
legislatures pick them. Exactly. So Alaska voters
have literally always had their hands on the
wheel. They never even knew the old system. They've
been directly electing their senators from day
one of statehood. And you see the intensity of
that voter participation right out of the gate.
If we look at the first wave of elections in
1958, the initial baseline is set by the Democrats.
Right. In the class two seat, Bob Bartlett wins.
But it's the margin that stands out. He pulls
in a massive 83 .83 percent of the vote. Wow.
And over in the class three seat, Ernest Gruening
wins with a closer but still decisive 52 .61
percent. Hold on. Let's just pause on that first
number. 83 .83 percent. Yeah. In a statewide
federal election, that is an astronomical level
of consensus. Usually anything over 55 percent
is considered a pretty comfortable win. Oh, absolutely.
To break 80 percent means you are essentially
running unopposed by the general public standard.
How long did that kind of dominance last? Well,
what's fascinating here is how quickly the landscape
shifts to give rise to what we can only call
the titans of Alaskan politics. OK. Well, the
Democrats set the very first baseline. The data
set reveals two Republican names emerging that
will go on to define these two Senate seats for
decades. Ted Stevens in Class 2 and Frank Murkowski
in Class 3. The big names. And the level of dominance
they achieve makes that initial 1958 race look
like a regular occurrence. I'm looking at this
early era in the data set right now, and these
victory margins for Stevens and Murkowski are
just absurd. How safe were these seats, realistically?
Incredibly safe. We are looking at an era of
absolute, undeniable blowouts. Let's look at
Ted Stevens. By 1972, he's winning with 77 .30
% of the vote. That's huge. Over three quarters
of the electorate agreeing on a single candidate.
And surely that was his peak, right? Usually
incumbent fatigue sets in after a couple of terms.
People just want to change. You would think so,
but the returns tell a completely different story.
Fast forward 30 years later to his 2002 election.
30 years later. Yeah. Ted Stevens actually improves
his margin, securing 78 .17%. He pulled in nearly
180 ,000 votes. That is staggering. A 30 -year
career where your margins actually go up to near
80%. It defies normal political gravity. And
what about the Class 3 seat? Did Frank Murkowski
have that same iron grip? He absolutely did.
In his 1998 re -election campaign, Murkowski
secured a massive 74 .49 % of the vote. I want
you, the listener, to imagine for a second that
you were living in Alaska during this era. You're
watching election cycle after election cycle
return these massive 70 plus percent victories
for the same two people. The stability of these
seats makes it seem like the political landscape
is permanently set in stone. It must have felt
like a complete political monolith. The idea
of a competitive nail biting Senate race probably
felt entirely foreign to those voters. Completely
foreign. But as we come further down this data
set. The predictability falls right off a cliff.
Here's where it gets really interesting. Oh,
yeah. We are going to look at the shifting tides,
starting with the drama of the class two seat.
So we just established that Ted Stevens is winning
by 30, 40 or even 50 point margins all the way
into 2002. Right. But then we hit the year 2008.
The incumbent Republican Ted Stevens is up against
a Democrat named Mark Begich. What exactly happens
to that 78 percent safety net? It completely
evaporates. The blowout era comes to a screeching
halt. In 2008, Mark Begich actually manages to
edge out Ted Stevens. Unbelievable. And the raw
totals are breathtaking when you compare them
to the previous decades. Begich brings in 151
,767 votes, which translates to 47 .77%. And
Stevens? Stevens takes 147 ,814 votes. That's
46 .52%. Wait, let me just do that math really
quick. We are talking about a difference of less
than 4 ,000 votes out of nearly 300 ,000 cast.
A shift of just 4 ,000 votes completely flips
a seat that was considered untouchable for decades.
It is a razor -thin margin. It represents a seismic
shock to the system. You have to remember, a
shift like that doesn't just change the nameplate
on the door. It completely shatters the illusion
of the monolithic electorate we just talked about.
But does the data set show that this was a permanent
shift? Did the Democrats lock it down after that
incredible 2008 upset? Not at all. Just as quickly
as the pendulum swung toward the Democrats in
2008, it swung right back in the very next cycle.
Really? Yeah. In 2014, the incumbent Democrat,
Mark Bigich, is challenged by Republican Dan
Sullivan. And once again, it is incredibly close.
Sullivan narrowly defeats Begich with 47 .96
percent of the vote compared to Begich's 45 .83
percent. Another absolute nail biter. The ping
ponging here is wild. But the evolution of this
class two seat doesn't stop with the two major
parties, does it? No, it doesn't. Let's fast
forward to the 2020 election. Dan Sullivan is
the Republican incumbent. Does he face another
fierce Democratic challenger? This is where the
electorate really starts showing its complexity.
In 2020, Dan Sullivan does manage to retain his
seat, securing a solid 53 .90%. But his main
opponent isn't a traditional Democrat. Right.
His opponent is Al Gross, running as an independent.
And Gross captures a very significant 41 .19
% of the vote. Over two -fifths of the state
backed an independent against a sitting incumbent.
This is exactly why we tailor these deep dives
for you, the listener. You want multiple perspectives,
right? Exactly. Well, just look at how this one
specific Senate seat demonstrates those rapidly
shifting perspectives. Within just a few election
cycles, we see the voters flip party control
entirely, flip it right back, and then heavily
back a candidate operating entirely outside the...
traditional two party structure. It's a total
transformation. It proves that no matter how
entrenched a seat looks on paper, voter sentiment
can pivot rapidly. If we connect this to the
bigger picture, the drama we just outlined in
the class two seat is really only half the story.
Oh. I know where you're going with this. Because
the wild ride of the class three seat, what we
might call the Lisa Murkowski saga, is arguably
even more extraordinary. Oh, absolutely. The
class three seat is where this spreadsheet turns
into an out and out thriller. Let's set a baseline
for this saga. In 2004, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican,
wins the class three seat. It's a tight race,
quite different from Frank Murkowski's old 74
percent blowouts. Right. She gets 38 .58 percent
against Democrat Tony Knowles, who pulls in 45
.55 percent. That squeaker sets the stage for
the absolute chaos of 2010. The 2010 election
is, without a doubt, the most shocking data point
in this entire Wikipedia source. I am still amazed
every time I look at these numbers. Walk us through
exactly what happened, because the logistics
alone are mind boggling. In 2010, the incumbent,
Lisa Murkowski, actually loses. the Republican
primary. She is not the official Republican nominee
for the general election, but she doesn't drop
out. Instead, she mounts a campaign in the general
election as a write in candidate and she wins.
Let's just talk about the physical mechanics
of that for a second. She isn't on the ballot.
People can't just check a box next to an R or
a D. What are the raw totals look like for a
successful write in at this level? The write
in option, which was officially attributed to
Lisa Murkowski, secured 92 ,931 votes. Incredible.
That is 36 .08 percent of the total vote. She
defeated the actual official Republican nominee,
Joe Miller, who received 35 .27 percent. And
the Democratic candidate, Scott McAdams, who
took 23 .32 percent. That is just historic. Think
about the friction involved in that process.
Over 92 ,000 people had to bypass the printed.
options on the ballot, remember to bring a pen
and physically write out her name. And spell
it right. Right. Spelling it correctly enough
to be counted by the election officials. And
she still beat the official candidate of her
own party. That just doesn't happen in modern
American politics. It is exceptionally rare.
To beat the infrastructure of the major parties
using a blank line on a piece of paper is a monumental
logistical feat. But the saga doesn't end there.
Of course it doesn't. Let's look at the 2016
election. Murkowski is running again, and she
secures the victory with 44 .36%. But take a
look at who her runner -up is. I see it. It's
Joe Miller again, the very guy she beat in 2010.
But if you look at the ticket, he isn't running
as a Republican this time. Correct. The tally
for that year lists Joe Miller running as a libertarian.
And he pulls in an impressive 29 .16 % of the
vote. It's literally like a political sequel
with a genre twist. He comes back, changes parties
and still grabs nearly 30 percent of the electorate.
It's wild. And just when you think the class
three seat can't get any more complicated, we
arrive at the most recent election listed in
the source, which is 2022. And Alaska throws
a massive structural curveball into the mix.
How did the format change? In 2022, the state
moved away from a simple plurality vote and utilized
instant runoff voting. So instead of just picking
one person, voters are ranking their choices.
If no one gets a majority, the lowest vote getters
are eliminated and their voters' second choices
are distributed until someone crosses the 50
percent threshold. Right. Ranked choice voting.
So how does that mechanical change impact the
final outcome based on the data set? It fundamentally
changes who is left standing at the end. According
to the spreadsheet, in the maximum round of this
instant runoff, Lisa Murkowski wins with 53 .70%.
But look at who she is facing in that final maximum
round. Let me see. It's Kelly Chewbacca who gets
46 .3%. Wait, Kelly Chewbacca is also a Republican?
Yeah. So because of the instant runoff mechanism,
the Democratic candidate and any third party
candidates were eliminated in the earlier rounds,
leaving two members of the exact same party facing
off as the final two candidates for a U .S. Senate
seat. That completely rewrites the binary Republican
versus Democrat playbook. It really does. Which
brings us to a fascinating macro trend in this
entire data set. Throughout all of these cycles,
across both the class two and class three seats,
there is a recurring, undeniable theme. Let's
hear it. Alaskan voters frequently support third
party and independent candidates at notably high
rates. It points to a distinct, deeply ingrained
culture of political independence. So what does
this all mean? It means these voters are consistently
willing to look outside the traditional safe
boxes. And the source gives us some incredibly
quirky, surprising data points to back this up.
Let's look at 1996 in the class two seat. OK.
Ted Stevens wins handily, of course. But who
came in second? A Green Party candidate named
Jed Whitaker. He secured 12 .52 percent of the
vote. And what about the Democrat in that race?
The mainstream Democratic candidate, Theresa
Obermeyer, only received 10 .34 percent. That
is wild. The Green Party actually beat the mainstream
Democrat. According to the numbers, yes. Usually
a third party is thrilled just to get three or
four percent of secure funding. To outpace a
major legacy party is incredible. Does that happen
anywhere else in this data set? It's definitely
not an isolated incident of voters defying convention.
If you jump over to the 1968 race for the class
three seat. Democrat Mike Gravel wins the election.
But the former incumbent, Ernest Gruening, mounted
a write -in campaign of his own. Oh, wow. And
he grabbed 17 .44 % of the vote. Almost a fifth
of the state writing in a name. Exactly. Or consider
that 2016 race we just discussed with Lisa Murkowski
and the libertarian Joe Miller. In that same
exact race, there was an independent candidate
on the ballot named Margaret Stock. How did she
do? She took 13 .23 % of the vote. So if you
combine Miller and stock, you have almost 100
,000 votes in a single election going to the
libertarian or independent. It is just staggering
volume for non -major party candidates. This
raises an important question. How does the traditional
two -party system manage to effectively function
in a state where the electorate is so clearly
and consistently willing to color outside the
lines? It's a great question. When you have Green
Party candidates beating Democrats, libertarians
taking nearly 30 percent of the vote, and independents
pulling in over 40 percent in a modern election
like Al Gross did in 2020, the typical binary
assumptions of American politics essentially
get thrown out the window. It really does force
you to reevaluate what a safe seat actually means
and what a journey this data has taken us on
today. To recap for you, the listener, we started
by looking at the massive, highly predictable
victory margins of the early statehood days.
The blowout era. Right. Titans like Bob Bartlett,
Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski locking down
margins of 70, sometimes over 80 percent, making
the state look like an immovable monolith. Then
we swung right into the nail -biting, razor -thin
Democratic and Republican flips of the 2000s
where a seat could be lost by a mere 4 ,000 votes.
Which changed everything. And finally, we culminated
in the absolute wild west of the class three
seat. Historic right in victories requiring tens
of thousands of people to physically spell out
a candidate's name and the introduction of instant
runoff matchups that put two members of the exact
same party against one another in the final round.
Equate the evolution. And the best part about
all of this, this data set is a living document.
The math isn't finished. The next chapters are
going to be written very soon. The source notes
that the class two seat is up for election in
2026 and the class three seat will be decided
again in 2028. Before we wrap up, I want to leave
you with a final lingering thought based purely
on the text we've analyzed today. Go for it.
When you look at how a state can fundamentally
change the mechanics of its elections, like Alaska
adopting that instant runoff voting, where the
math naturally eliminates certain factions until
two members of the exact same party end up as
the final choices on the ballot. You have to
wonder how the literal rules of the game change
the type of leaders that emerge. That's fascinating.
We spend so much time analyzing voter ideology,
tracking the shifting sentiments of Democrats
and Republicans. But does the mathematical mechanism
of voting matter just as much as the ideology
of the voters themselves? It's something to deeply
consider the next time you cast a ballot, wherever
you are. A perfect thought -provoking question
to leave off on. Thank you so much for joining
us on this deep dive. We hope you enjoyed exploring
the fascinating numbers, upsets, and logistics
behind Alaska's Senate history. Keep being curious,
keep questioning the data around you, and we
will see you next time.