WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.359 Welcome to the Deep Dive. I am really looking 00:00:03.359 --> 00:00:05.160 forward to getting into our topic today. Yeah, 00:00:05.160 --> 00:00:07.780 me too. Because we have a specific mission for 00:00:07.780 --> 00:00:11.519 this one, and it is honestly one of my favorite 00:00:11.519 --> 00:00:14.539 kinds of analytical exercises. We are taking 00:00:14.539 --> 00:00:17.160 a source that, well... At first glance, it might 00:00:17.160 --> 00:00:19.160 look like the driest, most straightforward document 00:00:19.160 --> 00:00:22.140 imaginable. It really does. Right. But we are 00:00:22.140 --> 00:00:25.100 going to extract the incredibly fascinating narratives 00:00:25.100 --> 00:00:28.320 that are hidden right there in plain sight. Today, 00:00:28.440 --> 00:00:32.679 we're analyzing the Wikipedia page for the list 00:00:32.679 --> 00:00:35.020 of United States Senate elections in Colorado. 00:00:35.630 --> 00:00:37.630 It does sound a bit like an eye test at first, 00:00:37.710 --> 00:00:39.090 doesn't it? I mean, if you just scroll through 00:00:39.090 --> 00:00:40.929 it, you are essentially looking at rows upon 00:00:40.929 --> 00:00:43.909 rows of dates, candidate names, voting percentages. 00:00:43.969 --> 00:00:46.570 So the giant spreadsheet. Exactly. Just a spreadsheet 00:00:46.570 --> 00:00:49.450 stretching back well over a century. But when 00:00:49.450 --> 00:00:51.890 you pause and actually analyze the trends in 00:00:51.890 --> 00:00:54.289 front of you, the entire document transforms. 00:00:54.960 --> 00:00:57.179 That is exactly how I felt looking at it. It's 00:00:57.179 --> 00:00:59.579 like looking at a secret numerical map of American 00:00:59.579 --> 00:01:02.799 history. It isn't just a table of numbers. It's 00:01:02.799 --> 00:01:05.540 a chronicle of shifting political alliances, 00:01:05.859 --> 00:01:10.810 massive electorate drama, and... the literal 00:01:10.810 --> 00:01:13.269 changing of the rules of the game. Yeah. And 00:01:13.269 --> 00:01:15.689 you, the listener, you get to ride shotgun as 00:01:15.689 --> 00:01:18.069 we pull apart what these numbers actually mean. 00:01:18.250 --> 00:01:21.230 To set the analytical stage for you, it helps 00:01:21.230 --> 00:01:23.510 to kind of contextualize the specific kind of 00:01:23.510 --> 00:01:26.250 data set we have here. We are examining over 00:01:26.250 --> 00:01:29.349 a century of direct election data. Right. Which 00:01:29.349 --> 00:01:33.069 provides us with a purely factual. totally objective 00:01:33.069 --> 00:01:35.950 look at how the voters of one specific state, 00:01:36.069 --> 00:01:38.829 in this case, Colorado, have shifted their preferences 00:01:38.829 --> 00:01:41.890 over time. It gives us a pristine snapshot of 00:01:41.890 --> 00:01:43.870 the electorate's behavior across completely different 00:01:43.870 --> 00:01:46.290 eras. We're talking major wars, economic booms, 00:01:46.310 --> 00:01:48.530 depressions, huge cultural shifts. All of it. 00:01:48.590 --> 00:01:50.769 Exactly. And as we dive in, just a quick reminder 00:01:50.769 --> 00:01:53.370 to you, the listener, we are strictly wearing 00:01:53.370 --> 00:01:55.950 our data analyst hats today. We aren't here to 00:01:55.950 --> 00:01:57.870 endorse any candidate or party on the left or 00:01:57.870 --> 00:02:00.310 the right. We are just here to read the fascinating 00:02:00.310 --> 00:02:02.620 story that the raw election. results tell us. 00:02:02.659 --> 00:02:04.819 We're totally neutral observers here. Exactly. 00:02:04.819 --> 00:02:06.840 We are looking impartially at the historical 00:02:06.840 --> 00:02:10.500 data exactly as it is laid out. No spin, no taking 00:02:10.500 --> 00:02:13.599 sides, just us, the numbers, and the historical 00:02:13.599 --> 00:02:15.919 shifts right there in the margins. Precisely. 00:02:16.099 --> 00:02:18.909 The numbers wrote the script. And our job is 00:02:18.909 --> 00:02:20.909 simply to read it and figure out the broader 00:02:20.909 --> 00:02:23.949 context. OK, let's unpack this. Looking at Colorado's 00:02:23.949 --> 00:02:26.830 framework, the data splits the state's representation 00:02:26.830 --> 00:02:29.530 into class two and class three seats, starting 00:02:29.530 --> 00:02:32.729 right at statehood in 1876. Right. You have these 00:02:32.729 --> 00:02:35.810 staggered six -year terms, meaning only a portion 00:02:35.810 --> 00:02:38.430 of the chamber is up for a vote in any given 00:02:38.430 --> 00:02:40.629 two -year cycle. It's a design built entirely 00:02:40.629 --> 00:02:43.729 around continuity, essentially ensuring a baseline 00:02:43.729 --> 00:02:46.729 of institutional memory. And while the data officially 00:02:46.729 --> 00:02:49.909 kicks off in 1876, the reality of those early 00:02:49.909 --> 00:02:52.150 years was vastly different from what voters experience 00:02:52.150 --> 00:02:54.689 today. Oh, entirely different. Yeah. When Colorado 00:02:54.689 --> 00:02:58.150 first entered the union, you as a citizen didn't 00:02:58.150 --> 00:03:00.229 actually have a direct say in who went to the 00:03:00.229 --> 00:03:02.509 Senate. Those seats were decided by the state 00:03:02.509 --> 00:03:05.090 legislature. Which is such a wild concept to 00:03:05.090 --> 00:03:06.810 wrap your head around today. I mean, you wouldn't 00:03:06.810 --> 00:03:08.990 campaign to the public. You would campaign to 00:03:08.990 --> 00:03:11.250 the legislators in back rooms. If we connect 00:03:11.250 --> 00:03:13.979 this to the bigger picture. This is a foundational 00:03:13.979 --> 00:03:16.919 pivot point in American political history. For 00:03:16.919 --> 00:03:19.460 decades, the Senate was heavily insulated from 00:03:19.460 --> 00:03:22.800 the direct popular vote. But the data in our 00:03:22.800 --> 00:03:25.789 list... undergoes a massive structural shift 00:03:25.789 --> 00:03:28.930 in 1913. That's the year the 17th Amendment passed. 00:03:29.189 --> 00:03:31.629 Strooping that appointment power away from the 00:03:31.629 --> 00:03:33.990 state legislatures. Exactly. And handing it directly 00:03:33.990 --> 00:03:36.509 to the voters. And what makes this particular 00:03:36.509 --> 00:03:39.370 list so valuable is that it rigorously tracks 00:03:39.370 --> 00:03:42.870 the elections after that 1913 Amendment. We are 00:03:42.870 --> 00:03:46.150 getting an unadulterated timeline of pure popular 00:03:46.150 --> 00:03:48.969 voting trends. Which brings us to the wild west 00:03:48.969 --> 00:03:51.629 of early direct elections. I was looking at the 00:03:51.629 --> 00:03:54.030 very first popular election on this list, the 00:03:54.030 --> 00:03:57.189 1914 race for the class three seat, and the results 00:03:57.189 --> 00:03:59.409 completely defied my expectations. It's a really 00:03:59.409 --> 00:04:02.509 chaotic snapshot. It is. Put yourself in the 00:04:02.509 --> 00:04:06.770 shoes of a Colorado voter in 1914. You finally 00:04:06.770 --> 00:04:09.810 have the power to directly elect your senator. 00:04:10.069 --> 00:04:12.689 You step up to the ballot box and the outcome 00:04:12.689 --> 00:04:15.680 is just wonderfully chaotic. It was a deeply 00:04:15.680 --> 00:04:17.959 fractured electorate, without a doubt. When you 00:04:17.959 --> 00:04:19.600 look at the margins, it doesn't look anything 00:04:19.600 --> 00:04:21.720 like a modern political mandate. Not at all. 00:04:21.819 --> 00:04:24.319 The winner of that first ever direct Senate election 00:04:24.319 --> 00:04:27.980 was Democrat Charles S. Thomas. But he took the 00:04:27.980 --> 00:04:30.600 seat with just over 40 percent of the vote. 40 00:04:30.600 --> 00:04:33.759 .3, zero percent, to be exact. Right. He barely 00:04:33.759 --> 00:04:36.259 edged out the Republican candidate Hubert Work, 00:04:36.459 --> 00:04:39.360 who came in at nearly 39 percent. So the winner 00:04:39.360 --> 00:04:42.360 is taking the prize with barely four in 10 voters 00:04:42.360 --> 00:04:44.850 actually casting a ballot for him. What's fascinating 00:04:44.850 --> 00:04:47.129 here is why those winning percentages were hovering 00:04:47.129 --> 00:04:50.529 so low. If you analyze the broader field in that 00:04:50.529 --> 00:04:54.110 1914 race, you immediately see the massive influence 00:04:54.110 --> 00:04:56.730 of third -party candidates. This wasn't a simple 00:04:56.730 --> 00:04:59.550 binary choice. Benjamin Griffith, running for 00:04:59.550 --> 00:05:02.110 the Progressive Party, grabbed nearly 11 % of 00:05:02.110 --> 00:05:05.449 the vote, 10 .69%. And then you had J .C. Griffith. 00:05:05.509 --> 00:05:08.250 Right, running for the Socialist Party. And he 00:05:08.250 --> 00:05:11.199 took... Roughly five and a half percent. I have 00:05:11.199 --> 00:05:13.540 to admit, I kind of love the fact that you have 00:05:13.540 --> 00:05:16.459 a Griffith and a Griffiths running for two completely 00:05:16.459 --> 00:05:18.800 different third parties on the exact same ballot. 00:05:18.939 --> 00:05:20.939 It's a great historical quirk. But think about 00:05:20.939 --> 00:05:23.139 what those percentages represent in terms of 00:05:23.139 --> 00:05:25.660 voter sentiment. You have an electorate deeply 00:05:25.660 --> 00:05:29.019 divided across four distinct political ideologies. 00:05:29.259 --> 00:05:32.649 Over 16 percent of the state. walked into a voting 00:05:32.649 --> 00:05:35.970 booth and chose either a progressive or a socialist 00:05:35.970 --> 00:05:38.490 candidate for the U .S. Senate. It's a phenomenal 00:05:38.490 --> 00:05:41.910 data point. It stands in stark contrast to the 00:05:41.910 --> 00:05:44.350 rigid two -party structures we usually analyze 00:05:44.350 --> 00:05:48.589 today. This 1914 snapshot shows us a voting public 00:05:48.589 --> 00:05:51.230 that was willing to explore wildly different 00:05:51.230 --> 00:05:53.629 visions for the country's trajectory right at 00:05:53.629 --> 00:05:55.629 the onset of direct democracy for the Senate. 00:05:55.769 --> 00:05:57.750 They were really testing the waters. They were. 00:05:57.850 --> 00:06:00.209 It was an era of intense ideological experimentation. 00:06:01.050 --> 00:06:02.790 And the voters clearly weren't afraid to split 00:06:02.790 --> 00:06:04.829 their tickets. And that third party insurgent 00:06:04.829 --> 00:06:07.110 energy, it didn't just fade away after one election 00:06:07.110 --> 00:06:10.389 cycle. Jump forward 10 years to the 1924 class 00:06:10.389 --> 00:06:12.949 two election and we see it happen again. The 00:06:12.949 --> 00:06:16.129 Farmer Labor Party. Yes. A candidate named Morton 00:06:16.129 --> 00:06:18.870 Alexander ran under the Farmer Labor Party banner. 00:06:19.329 --> 00:06:21.990 He didn't just pick up a few protest votes. He 00:06:21.990 --> 00:06:24.930 pulled in over 5 percent of the total electorate. 00:06:25.209 --> 00:06:28.149 That is a massive chunk to carve out of a race 00:06:28.149 --> 00:06:30.769 where the Republican incumbent Lawrence C. Phipps 00:06:30.769 --> 00:06:34.449 only secured about 50 percent of the vote. Those 00:06:34.449 --> 00:06:37.290 early decades really emphasized the fluidity 00:06:37.290 --> 00:06:40.089 of party loyalty at the time. Voters were highly 00:06:40.089 --> 00:06:43.389 pragmatic. If they felt their specific agricultural 00:06:43.389 --> 00:06:46.410 and labor interests weren't being championed 00:06:46.410 --> 00:06:48.310 by the traditional two parties. They just went 00:06:48.310 --> 00:06:50.430 somewhere else. Exactly. They were perfectly 00:06:50.430 --> 00:06:53.610 willing to leverage their votes elsewhere. It 00:06:53.610 --> 00:06:55.889 kept the major parties from taking any demographic 00:06:55.889 --> 00:06:58.069 for granted. Here's where it gets really interesting, 00:06:58.170 --> 00:07:00.629 though, because as we move deeper into the data, 00:07:00.689 --> 00:07:03.089 we start to see these incredible pendulum swings 00:07:03.089 --> 00:07:06.410 between absolute undeniable blowouts and races 00:07:06.410 --> 00:07:09.209 that are so tight you can hardly breathe. Let's 00:07:09.209 --> 00:07:11.329 look at the extremes, starting with the ultimate 00:07:11.329 --> 00:07:14.550 landslide. The 1948 class two election is the 00:07:14.550 --> 00:07:17.209 prime example of that extreme. It is a staggering 00:07:17.209 --> 00:07:20.730 result. In 1948, Democrat Edwin C. Johnson completely 00:07:20.730 --> 00:07:23.589 dominated the field. He took nearly 67 percent 00:07:23.589 --> 00:07:27.569 of the vote. 66 .79 percent. Right. And the Republican 00:07:27.569 --> 00:07:30.089 challenger, Will Nicholson, only managed about 00:07:30.089 --> 00:07:33.870 32 percent. Johnson essentially doubled his opponent's 00:07:33.870 --> 00:07:36.709 vote total. When you pull nearly 67 percent in 00:07:36.709 --> 00:07:39.050 a statewide Senate race, you are looking at a 00:07:39.050 --> 00:07:42.050 politician who has built a coalition so broad 00:07:42.050 --> 00:07:44.490 that it essentially neutralizes the opposition. 00:07:45.160 --> 00:07:47.339 But the data also reveals the complete opposite 00:07:47.339 --> 00:07:50.720 end of the spectrum. For every massive blowout, 00:07:50.800 --> 00:07:53.839 there is an incredibly tight nail biter. And 00:07:53.839 --> 00:07:56.100 the tightest of them all on this list is the 00:07:56.100 --> 00:07:59.399 1932 special election for the class three seat. 00:07:59.560 --> 00:08:01.399 This is the one that really stood out to me. 00:08:01.480 --> 00:08:03.579 The margins are almost nonexistent. It is the 00:08:03.579 --> 00:08:06.519 absolute definition of a razor's edge. You have 00:08:06.519 --> 00:08:09.019 Republican Carl C. Shiler facing off against 00:08:09.019 --> 00:08:11.709 Democrat Walter Walker. When the dust settles, 00:08:11.769 --> 00:08:16.269 Scaler receives 207 ,540 votes. Walker receives 00:08:16.269 --> 00:08:20.519 206 ,475 votes. So we are talking about a difference 00:08:20.519 --> 00:08:23.060 of barely over a thousand votes across the entire 00:08:23.060 --> 00:08:26.360 state. Exactly. Look at the percentages. Schuyler 00:08:26.360 --> 00:08:30.259 won with roughly 48 .7 percent. Walker lost with 00:08:30.259 --> 00:08:33.360 roughly 48 .5 percent. It is a difference of 00:08:33.360 --> 00:08:36.340 a quarter of a percent. A microscopic fraction 00:08:36.340 --> 00:08:39.159 decided who went to Washington to represent the 00:08:39.159 --> 00:08:41.460 state. Imagine being on the campaign team for 00:08:41.460 --> 00:08:43.960 either of those candidates. Every single neighborhood 00:08:43.960 --> 00:08:46.059 you canvassed, every single door you knocked 00:08:46.059 --> 00:08:49.000 on, every voter you convinced to show up, it 00:08:49.000 --> 00:08:51.679 all literally mattered. Every single one. And 00:08:51.679 --> 00:08:53.820 the data shows this wasn't just a one -off historical 00:08:53.820 --> 00:08:57.080 fluke. Colorado has a clear track record of these 00:08:57.080 --> 00:09:00.440 heart -stotting finishes. Take the 1942 Class 00:09:00.440 --> 00:09:04.440 II race. Edwin C. Johnson, the same guy who goes 00:09:04.440 --> 00:09:07.720 on to win that massive 67 % landslide six years 00:09:07.720 --> 00:09:10.360 later, had the absolute fight of his life in 00:09:10.360 --> 00:09:13.289 42. He won by just over one point against his 00:09:13.289 --> 00:09:15.750 Republican challenger, Carr. Which perfectly 00:09:15.750 --> 00:09:18.110 illustrates how quickly a political mandate can 00:09:18.110 --> 00:09:20.409 shift in a competitive state. You can win by 00:09:20.409 --> 00:09:22.509 a single point in one cycle and then double your 00:09:22.509 --> 00:09:24.629 opponent's total in the next. And then you have 00:09:24.629 --> 00:09:28.070 the upset of the 1972 class two race. You have 00:09:28.070 --> 00:09:30.470 a Republican incumbent, Gordon Allott, who had 00:09:30.470 --> 00:09:33.350 held the seat comfortably since 1954. He had 00:09:33.350 --> 00:09:35.350 won three previous elections without breaking 00:09:35.350 --> 00:09:38.029 a sweat. He was a fixture in the Senate. Absolutely. 00:09:38.450 --> 00:09:42.129 But in 72, Democrat Floyd Haskell unseats him 00:09:42.129 --> 00:09:45.610 by the narrowest of margins, roughly 49 .4 percent 00:09:45.610 --> 00:09:49.049 to 48 .3 percent. Just about a one point difference 00:09:49.049 --> 00:09:53.129 ends a nearly two decade Senate career. The analytical 00:09:53.129 --> 00:09:55.909 takeaway from these specific squeakers is profoundly 00:09:55.909 --> 00:09:58.250 important for understanding the state's political 00:09:58.250 --> 00:10:02.419 DNA. These razor thin margins serve as a historical 00:10:02.419 --> 00:10:06.019 ledger, reminding us of just how intensely competitive 00:10:06.019 --> 00:10:08.279 the environment has been over the last century. 00:10:08.379 --> 00:10:10.679 When an electorate repeatedly produces results 00:10:10.679 --> 00:10:12.879 decided by a percent or less, it creates a very 00:10:12.879 --> 00:10:15.659 specific kind of political pressure cooker. Politicians 00:10:15.659 --> 00:10:18.080 are kept constantly on their toes. There is zero 00:10:18.080 --> 00:10:20.259 room for complacency when a shift of a few thousand 00:10:20.259 --> 00:10:23.080 votes can send you packing. Which perfectly sets 00:10:23.080 --> 00:10:25.320 up what is arguably the most surprising plot 00:10:25.320 --> 00:10:27.779 twist in this entire data set. I was scrolling 00:10:27.779 --> 00:10:29.360 through the chronologies, looking at the shifting 00:10:29.360 --> 00:10:32.179 margins, and I literally had to stop and reread 00:10:32.179 --> 00:10:33.960 the rows to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding 00:10:33.960 --> 00:10:37.360 the table. We really need to talk about Ben Nighthorse 00:10:37.360 --> 00:10:39.539 Campbell on the class three seat in the 1990s. 00:10:39.539 --> 00:10:42.240 It is a remarkable anomaly. You rarely see this 00:10:42.240 --> 00:10:44.299 kind of trajectory in modern electoral data. 00:10:44.440 --> 00:10:47.000 It is total political deja vu, but with a complete 00:10:47.000 --> 00:10:49.960 uniform change. So here's how the data lays it 00:10:49.960 --> 00:10:53.090 out. In 1992, Ben Nighthorse Campbell wins the 00:10:53.090 --> 00:10:55.750 class three seat. He wins it as a Democrat, pulling 00:10:55.750 --> 00:10:58.730 in a solid mandate of nearly 52 percent against 00:10:58.730 --> 00:11:01.429 his Republican opponent. Right. He goes to Washington, 00:11:01.710 --> 00:11:05.919 serves his term. Six years pass. It is 1998 and 00:11:05.919 --> 00:11:07.879 it's time for Campbell to face the voters again 00:11:07.879 --> 00:11:10.320 for that same class three seat. He runs and he 00:11:10.320 --> 00:11:12.980 wins again. But this time he wins as a Republican. 00:11:13.320 --> 00:11:15.519 This raises an important question about voter 00:11:15.519 --> 00:11:18.539 psychology and candidate loyalty. You might assume 00:11:18.539 --> 00:11:21.960 a high profile party switch would alienate a 00:11:21.960 --> 00:11:24.080 massive portion of his original voting base. 00:11:24.720 --> 00:11:27.519 But the numbers here tell a completely different 00:11:27.519 --> 00:11:30.990 story. Not only did he win as a Republican, but 00:11:30.990 --> 00:11:33.750 look at the margin he achieved. Yes. In 1998, 00:11:34.090 --> 00:11:36.470 running as a Republican, Campbell takes over 00:11:36.470 --> 00:11:40.029 62 percent of the vote. He absolutely crushed 00:11:40.029 --> 00:11:42.269 his Democratic opponent, who only managed about 00:11:42.269 --> 00:11:45.750 35 percent. His margin of victory actually expanded 00:11:45.750 --> 00:11:48.710 dramatically after switching parties. It is deeply 00:11:48.710 --> 00:11:51.299 fascinating. When we analyze this data point, 00:11:51.399 --> 00:11:53.320 we have to acknowledge how incredibly rare it 00:11:53.320 --> 00:11:56.000 is to see a sitting U .S. senator completely 00:11:56.000 --> 00:11:59.159 switch their party affiliation midstream and 00:11:59.159 --> 00:12:01.259 not only survive the subsequent election, but 00:12:01.259 --> 00:12:03.500 actually win it by a substantially larger margin. 00:12:03.720 --> 00:12:07.340 He increased his vote share by 10 points. It 00:12:07.340 --> 00:12:09.320 strongly implies that in this specific instance, 00:12:09.519 --> 00:12:12.039 a huge swath of the electorate was voting for 00:12:12.039 --> 00:12:14.600 the individual Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the person 00:12:14.600 --> 00:12:17.039 entirely independent of the party apparatus or 00:12:17.039 --> 00:12:19.320 the letter next to his name. It's like your star 00:12:19.320 --> 00:12:21.820 player deciding to sign with your biggest rival 00:12:21.820 --> 00:12:24.419 in the offseason and the home crowd cheering 00:12:24.419 --> 00:12:26.700 for him even louder when he comes back to town. 00:12:26.820 --> 00:12:29.299 It completely bucks the conventional wisdom of 00:12:29.299 --> 00:12:31.840 partisan loyalty. It really does. And speaking 00:12:31.840 --> 00:12:34.779 of bizarre 1990s data quirks, the table gives 00:12:34.779 --> 00:12:37.100 us another incredible instance of political deja 00:12:37.100 --> 00:12:39.519 vu right around the same time. Let's look at 00:12:39.519 --> 00:12:43.019 the class two elections of 1996 and 2002. Ah, 00:12:43.259 --> 00:12:46.120 the Allard and Strickland matchups. This is a 00:12:46.120 --> 00:12:48.440 brilliant study in demographics. stillness. It 00:12:48.440 --> 00:12:50.620 is the exact same matchup for the exact same 00:12:50.620 --> 00:12:53.799 seat twice in a row. In 1996, you have a Republican 00:12:53.799 --> 00:12:56.100 Wayne Allard facing off against Democrat Tom 00:12:56.100 --> 00:12:59.100 Strickland. Allard wins. He takes the seat with 00:12:59.100 --> 00:13:02.000 a margin of about five points, roughly 51 percent 00:13:02.000 --> 00:13:04.580 to 46 percent. Yes. Six years of history happened. 00:13:04.700 --> 00:13:07.059 We cross into a new millennium. And in 2002, 00:13:07.240 --> 00:13:09.779 they do it all over again. The sequel, Allard 00:13:09.779 --> 00:13:12.039 versus Strickland. And what makes this repeat 00:13:12.039 --> 00:13:14.909 matchup so compelling? isn't just that the same 00:13:14.909 --> 00:13:18.149 two candidates ran. It is the sheer, unyielding 00:13:18.149 --> 00:13:20.389 consistency of the electorate across those two 00:13:20.389 --> 00:13:23.929 cycles. As you noted, an entire six -year term 00:13:23.929 --> 00:13:27.029 has passed. New issues have emerged. But the 00:13:27.029 --> 00:13:29.409 voters delivered nearly the exact same verdict 00:13:29.409 --> 00:13:32.090 down to the decimal point. Down to the decimal 00:13:32.090 --> 00:13:35.809 point. In 1996, Allard won by roughly five points. 00:13:36.129 --> 00:13:38.970 Six years later, the electorate barely budged. 00:13:38.970 --> 00:13:41.580 He won again. by the exact same five -point spread. 00:13:41.799 --> 00:13:44.059 The percentages practically mirrored each other. 00:13:44.200 --> 00:13:46.659 Both candidates saw a tiny fractional drop of 00:13:46.659 --> 00:13:48.500 about a third of a percent from their previous 00:13:48.500 --> 00:13:51.600 totals. It is almost as if the entire state electorate 00:13:51.600 --> 00:13:55.139 was frozen in amber for six years. It is a striking 00:13:55.139 --> 00:13:57.500 statistical anomaly. It serves as a testament 00:13:57.500 --> 00:13:59.519 to a deeply entrenched electorate during that 00:13:59.519 --> 00:14:01.860 specific window of time. Neither side was able 00:14:01.860 --> 00:14:03.799 to persuade a meaningful number of voters to 00:14:03.799 --> 00:14:05.740 cross the aisle despite having a full Senate 00:14:05.740 --> 00:14:07.840 term to try and shift the narrative. The lines 00:14:07.840 --> 00:14:10.470 were drawn. And the voters did not budge. OK, 00:14:10.590 --> 00:14:13.269 let's pull our lens back and look at the modern 00:14:13.269 --> 00:14:16.190 era in this data set from the 2000s to today, 00:14:16.350 --> 00:14:19.409 because looking at this recent data, we see two 00:14:19.409 --> 00:14:22.230 totally different political personalities emerge 00:14:22.230 --> 00:14:25.250 for these two Senate seats. It is almost like 00:14:25.250 --> 00:14:28.309 they belong to different states. Let's start 00:14:28.309 --> 00:14:30.220 with the class two seat. I call this one the 00:14:30.220 --> 00:14:32.919 swing state phenomenon. Over the last couple 00:14:32.919 --> 00:14:35.480 of decades, this seat has been an absolute political 00:14:35.480 --> 00:14:38.259 pendulum. It has been a highly volatile seat 00:14:38.259 --> 00:14:41.279 characterized by rapid recalibration by the voters. 00:14:41.360 --> 00:14:43.960 Exactly. Look at the timeline. In 2008, Democrat 00:14:43.960 --> 00:14:46.700 Mark Udall wins the seat comfortably with nearly 00:14:46.700 --> 00:14:50.250 53 percent of the vote. He looks secure. But 00:14:50.250 --> 00:14:53.389 six years later, in 2014, the pendulum swings 00:14:53.389 --> 00:14:56.470 back hard. Republican Cory Gardner challenges 00:14:56.470 --> 00:14:59.269 Udall and narrowly takes the seat from him, winning 00:14:59.269 --> 00:15:02.549 by about two points, 48 .2 percent to 46 .26 00:15:02.549 --> 00:15:05.049 percent. So the Republicans have reclaimed the 00:15:05.049 --> 00:15:07.429 seat. But the pendulum wasn't finished swinging. 00:15:07.649 --> 00:15:10.730 The electorate wasn't settled. Not at all. Fast 00:15:10.730 --> 00:15:14.350 forward to 2020. Democrat John Hickenlooper challenges 00:15:14.350 --> 00:15:17.409 Gardner and the electorate recalibrates yet again. 00:15:17.870 --> 00:15:19.970 Hickenlooper swings the seat back to the Democrats, 00:15:20.250 --> 00:15:23.350 defeating Gardner by a solid margin. That one 00:15:23.350 --> 00:15:25.889 seat, Class 2, went from Democrat to Republican 00:15:25.889 --> 00:15:28.289 right back to Democrat in just three election 00:15:28.289 --> 00:15:30.830 cycles. Now contrast that extreme volatility 00:15:30.830 --> 00:15:34.289 with the Class 3 seat during roughly the same 00:15:34.289 --> 00:15:37.149 time period. While Class 2 has been swinging 00:15:37.149 --> 00:15:40.029 wildly back and forth, Class 3 has acted as an 00:15:40.029 --> 00:15:43.029 anchor. It has been remarkably steady. The data 00:15:43.029 --> 00:15:45.309 shows that this seat has been held by a single 00:15:45.309 --> 00:15:48.049 individual. Democrat Michael Bennett through 00:15:48.049 --> 00:15:50.950 three consecutive election cycles, 2010, 2016 00:15:50.950 --> 00:15:54.110 and 2022. But the data also shows it didn't start 00:15:54.110 --> 00:15:56.190 easy for him. He really had to earn that anchor 00:15:56.190 --> 00:15:58.250 status. He absolutely did. In his first election 00:15:58.250 --> 00:16:00.830 in 2010, Bennett barely survived a very close 00:16:00.830 --> 00:16:02.929 race against his Republican challenger, winning 00:16:02.929 --> 00:16:05.730 by less than two points, 48 .08 percent to 46 00:16:05.730 --> 00:16:09.090 .40 percent. But as we track his trajectory through 00:16:09.090 --> 00:16:11.309 the subsequent columns, we see his grip on the 00:16:11.309 --> 00:16:13.990 seat solidify. He builds that coalition. Exactly. 00:16:14.269 --> 00:16:17.649 He navigates a tough. map in 2016. And by 2022, 00:16:18.110 --> 00:16:20.549 he expands his winning margin significantly, 00:16:21.149 --> 00:16:24.409 taking nearly 56 % of the vote. He goes from 00:16:24.409 --> 00:16:27.169 barely surviving to commanding the field. I really 00:16:27.169 --> 00:16:30.269 want you, the listener, to chew on what it implies 00:16:30.269 --> 00:16:33.169 to live in an ecosystem with this specific political 00:16:33.169 --> 00:16:36.529 dynamic. You are a voter looking at your two 00:16:36.529 --> 00:16:39.610 Senate seats. For one seat, the class three seat, 00:16:39.710 --> 00:16:42.429 you have deep stability, the same person representing 00:16:42.429 --> 00:16:45.450 you building seniority for over a decade. But 00:16:45.450 --> 00:16:47.549 for the other seat, the class two seat, you are 00:16:47.549 --> 00:16:49.950 living in a constant state of electoral whiplash. 00:16:50.750 --> 00:16:52.809 Completely dual experience. It is. The state 00:16:52.809 --> 00:16:54.570 swings left, it swings right, it swings back 00:16:54.570 --> 00:16:57.289 left. It never lets one party get entirely too 00:16:57.289 --> 00:16:59.690 comfortable in that chair. It is endlessly fascinating 00:16:59.690 --> 00:17:01.970 to see both the volatile pendulum and the steady 00:17:01.970 --> 00:17:04.869 anchor existing in the exact same state voted 00:17:04.869 --> 00:17:07.049 on by the exact same people at the exact same 00:17:07.049 --> 00:17:09.960 time. It really highlights the sheer complexity 00:17:09.960 --> 00:17:12.660 of statewide electorates. They are not monoliths. 00:17:12.660 --> 00:17:15.019 We tend to paint states in broad strokes, red, 00:17:15.200 --> 00:17:17.960 blue, purple. But the data shows that voters 00:17:17.960 --> 00:17:21.099 react distinctly to different candidates, different 00:17:21.099 --> 00:17:24.480 national moods, and the specific cadence of overlapping 00:17:24.480 --> 00:17:27.039 election cycles. Which is exactly why we wanted 00:17:27.039 --> 00:17:29.980 to take on this specific mission today. To wrap 00:17:29.980 --> 00:17:32.400 this all up, I hope you can see now why we get 00:17:32.400 --> 00:17:34.640 so deeply invested in what looks like a quote 00:17:34.640 --> 00:17:37.559 unquote boring list of dates and voting. percentages, 00:17:37.579 --> 00:17:40.359 because when you actually read the numbers and 00:17:40.359 --> 00:17:43.220 analyze the margins, they tell a truly thrilling 00:17:43.220 --> 00:17:45.859 story. They absolutely do. We started back in 00:17:45.859 --> 00:17:49.200 1914 with massive third party insurgencies from 00:17:49.200 --> 00:17:51.180 progressives and socialists that fractured the 00:17:51.180 --> 00:17:54.099 vote. We witnessed absolute landslides where 00:17:54.099 --> 00:17:56.400 one candidate doubled the other's vote total 00:17:56.400 --> 00:17:59.059 and we saw victories decided by a fraction of 00:17:59.059 --> 00:18:02.069 a single percent. We analyzed a sitting senator 00:18:02.069 --> 00:18:04.529 who completely flipped his political party and 00:18:04.529 --> 00:18:06.849 managed to win his next race by an even wider 00:18:06.849 --> 00:18:09.849 margin. And we watched a modern electorate swinging 00:18:09.849 --> 00:18:12.230 back and forth, constantly keeping the politicians 00:18:12.230 --> 00:18:15.049 guessing. It's incredible. It is over a century 00:18:15.049 --> 00:18:19.150 of incredible historical drama, all neatly organized 00:18:19.150 --> 00:18:21.869 into a single table. So what does this all mean? 00:18:22.089 --> 00:18:24.609 We saw how the 17th Amendment changed Senate 00:18:24.609 --> 00:18:27.390 elections from a behind closed doors legislative 00:18:27.390 --> 00:18:30.759 decision to a direct popular vote. Looking at 00:18:30.759 --> 00:18:33.240 these razor thin margins and the occasional third 00:18:33.240 --> 00:18:36.400 party spoiler, it makes you wonder how much of 00:18:36.400 --> 00:18:38.720 our political history is decided not just by 00:18:38.720 --> 00:18:41.259 who the candidates are, but by the precise rules 00:18:41.259 --> 00:18:43.099 of how we are allowed to vote for them. That 00:18:43.099 --> 00:18:45.119 is a brilliant point to leave things on. Thank 00:18:45.119 --> 00:18:47.039 you so much for joining us on this deep dive. 00:18:47.180 --> 00:18:49.220 I hope you found as much insight in this historical 00:18:49.220 --> 00:18:51.880 map as we did. Keep looking closely at the data 00:18:51.880 --> 00:18:53.839 around you. Keep questioning the numbers and 00:18:53.839 --> 00:18:54.880 we will catch you next time.