I want you to picture something for a second.
You are staring at a massive, sprawling spreadsheet.
Oh yeah, the kind that just makes your eyes immediately
glaze over. Exactly. We are talking... Rows and
columns of dates, names, political parties and
seemingly endless percentages. Right. On the
surface, it is just a source list titled List
of United States Senate Elections in Ohio. Yeah,
it sounds like the kind of thing you might accidentally
click on while pummeling down a late night Internet
rabbit hole. And immediately click away from.
But if you actually stop, if you sit down and
read between those neat little lines of data,
you start to see something incredible take shape.
You really do. You see a century of drama unfold.
You see epic political rivalries, massive landslide
victories and razor thin margins that completely
shifted the direction of an entire state. It's
basically a historical thriller hidden in a math
textbook. That is exactly what it is. And today
our mission on this deep dive is to take this
seemingly dry wall of text and extract the hidden
narratives and the surprising voting trends buried
within all that raw election data. I'm ready.
We are going to turn those numbers into a living,
breathing story just for you. OK, let's unpack
this. So to really understand the story these
numbers are telling, we have to start by looking
at the mechanical structure of the Senate itself.
Right. The ground rules. Exactly. Now, we all
know each state gets two seats. But the crucial
detail here is how those seats are staggered.
Ohio's representation is split into what are
known as a class one seat and a class three seat.
Because. Senator serves six year terms. Yes.
And the entire U .S. Senate doesn't turn over
all at once. Every two years, about one third
of the chamber is up for reelection. So for the
voters in Ohio, that means they are only ever
voting for one of these specific classes at a
time. Unless a sudden vacancy triggers a special
election. Yeah. It creates this really fascinating
rhythm. Yes, a fascinating rhythm. But the rules
of engagement for this rhythm haven't always
been the same. And that is the perfect place
to start because the starting line for the data
we are looking at isn't when Ohio became a state.
The real story begins much later. Right. What's
fascinating here is that the numbers we are examining
today mark a massive historical pivot. How so?
Well, before 1913, the everyday public wasn't
making these decisions. U .S. senators were selected
by state legislatures. Wow. Yeah, it was a process
defined by political maneuvering and backroom
deals among local politicians. But that entire
system was dismantled with the passage of the
17th Amendment. Which mandated that senators
be elected directly by the voters of each state.
Exactly. So the data we are going to explore
strictly focuses on the era that followed that
amendment, the era of direct. popular elections.
We are looking at the unvarnished choices made
by the voting public of Ohio from 1914 all the
way to 2024. Precisely. Let's jump straight into
the class three seat because that is where this
new era of direct voting kicks off. The 1914
race. Right. The very first direct election for
Ohio happens in 1914 for this exact seat. You
can almost imagine the electorate stepping up
to the ballot box, wielding this new constitutional
power for the very first time. It must have been
quite a moment. And the winner of that inaugural
direct race is a Republican named Warren G. Harding.
He takes the seat, but doesn't exactly run away
with it. No, it was pretty close. He pulls in
just under 50 percent of the vote, 49 .16 percent
to be exact, defeating his Democratic opponent,
Timothy Sylvester Hogan. It is a solid win, but
it is competitive. Very. However, as you move
forward in time, that competitiveness in the
class three seat starts to vanish. we start seeing
what look like absolute political dynasties.
Oh, absolutely. The mid -20th century data for
Class III is completely dominated by one name,
Robert A. Taft. Ah, yes. If you track the Republican
column during this era, Taft establishes a level
of control over this seat that lasts for more
than a decade. But it isn't a straight line of
easy victories. Well, he wins his first term
in 1938 with a fairly comfortable 53 .62 % of
the vote. But six years later, in 1944, the environment
clearly changes. What happens? Taft barely scrapes
by. He successfully defends the seat with 50
.30 percent against Democrat William G. Pickerel,
who took 49 .70 percent. Let's just pause on
that for a second. Winning by a fraction of a
single percentage point across an entire state.
is surviving a near -death political experience.
It really is. That has to change a candidate's
entire approach to their next term. It certainly
appears to have solidified his base, because
when Taft returns for a third time in 1950, he
doesn't just win. He completely turns the tide.
He bounces back. Big time. He expands his margin
to an incredibly secure 57 .54%. In an electoral
system where the pendulum is constantly swinging
back and forth between parties, winning three
consecutive six -year terms, especially after
nearly losing the second one, demonstrates a
remarkably stable and evolving connection with
the electorate. That is an impressive run. But
if we are talking about stable connections with
the electorate, we have to talk about the absolute
record breaker in this data. Oh, I know where
you're going with this. I was looking at the
Democratic side of the class three ledger later
in the century, and the numbers attached to John
Glenn are genuinely staggering. They are massive.
I mean, we just talked about Taft surviving on
a fraction of a percent. John Glenn is operating
in a completely different universe. He really
is. He wins this seat in 1974 with nearly 65
% of the vote, 64 .62 % to be precise. And he
doesn't stop there. By the 1980 election, his
vote share peaks at almost 69%, 68 .80%. It's
hard to even conceptualize margins that wide
in modern politics. Just looking at the macro
level, that is basically seven out of every 10
voters choosing one person. To put that 1980
peak into perspective using the raw numbers,
we're talking about... 2 ,770 ,786 individual
votes for one candidate. Wow. Over 2 .7 million
votes. It is a massive footprint. And you see
that dominance continue into 1986, where he holds
the seat again with 62 .45%. Yeah. It illustrates
how a single candidate can sometimes completely
transcend. the usual partisan tug of war. Yeah,
they stop being just a representative of a party
and become a fixture of the state's identity.
Exactly. But gravity eventually catches up to
everyone, doesn't it? Even a winning streak that
massive has an expiration date. It does. By 1992,
Glenn's era of overwhelming landslides cools
off significantly. He still wins, though. He
still wins the election, but the margin shrinks
dramatically. He secures 50 .88 percent of the
vote against a Republican challenger named Mike
DeWine, who pulls in 42 .22 percent. Quite a
drop from 68 percent. It is a clear mathematical
signal that the electorate is beginning to shift
its mood and that the untouchable era of the
1970s and 80s is coming to a close. That 1992
race is such a pivotal moment. And we are absolutely
going to come back to Mike DeWine because his
trajectory over the next few years is wild. It
really is. But just to follow. Follow the thread
of this class three seat into the modern era.
The data shows Republicans taking very firm control.
Yes. Starting in the early 2000s. In 2004, Republican
George Voinovich hits a massive peak of his own.
He takes the seat with nearly 64 percent of the
vote, 63 .85 percent. Because the population
has grown so much by then, that percentage translates
to nearly 3 .5 million individual votes. Which
is just a logistical marvel just to get that
many people to agree on something. Right. Then
we see Rob Portman win consecutive. elections
in 2010 and 2016 with very comfortable margins
around 57 and 58 percent. Keeping that stability
going. Exactly. Which brings us to the most recent
data point for class three. The 2022 election,
where Republican J .D. Vance defeats Democrat
Tim Ryan, 53 .04 % to 46 .92%. When you lay all
that out, it becomes a perfect encapsulation
of how the class three seat behaves over time.
You have these long, unbroken stretches of stability.
Taft, Glenn, Portman. Exactly. You have Taft
in the mid -century, Glenn in the late 20th century,
and Portman in the 2010s. The voters in Ohio.
seem to find a candidate they like in this specific
seat and keep them there for a while, regardless
of whether there is a D or an R next to their
name. Here's where it gets really interesting
because the class one seat is an entirely different
beast. Oh, totally. If class three is about stability,
long legacies and voters getting comfortable,
class one is a game of high stakes political
musical chairs. That is the best way to describe
it. The data for the seat is incredibly volatile.
It is characterized by intense rivalries, constantly
changing hands, and an electorate that seems
perfectly willing to fire their senator and hire
someone else on a whim. The ultimate example
of that volatility is the saga between Republican
Robert Taft Jr. and Democrat Howard Metzenbaum
in the 1970s. Oh, this one is fascinating. This
is where the raw data tells an incredible story
of political persistence and the sheer agony
of close elections. In the 1970 election for
Class 1, Robert Taft Jr. defeats Howard Metzenbaum.
But it's close. Very close. Taft Jr. gets 49
.68 % and Metzenbaum gets 47 .45%. Out of over
3 million total votes cast across the state,
they are separated by roughly 70 ,000 votes.
Let's do the math on that for a second. Ohio
has 88 counties. A 78 ,000 vote difference means
you are looking at fewer than 1 ,000 votes per
county, making the difference between becoming
a U .S. senator and going home empty -handed.
That's agonizing. For a candidate. Losing a race
that tight has to be absolutely crushing. You
spend months on the road, millions of dollars,
and you miss the mark by a rounding error. You
would think Metzenbaum might just walk away from
politics entirely after coming that agonizingly
close. Many people would, but he doesn't. He
comes right back. Six years go by, the calendar
rolls over to 1976, and the exact same matchup
appears on the ballot. Howard Metzenbaum returns
to challenge Robert Taft Jr. for the exact same
class one seat. And this time... The electorate
flips. They do. Metzenbaum unseats the incumbent,
winning 49 .51 % to Taft Jr.'s 46 .52%. Wow.
It is a phenomenal example of how static numbers
on a page actually represent the shifting fluid
opinions of millions of human beings over a six
-year period. And Metzenbaum doesn't just win
once. He goes on to hold that seat with solid
margins in 1982 and 1988, proving that sometimes
absolute stubborn persistence is the most important
metric in politics. And speaking of persistence
and strategy, we have to talk about Mike DeWine.
This is my favorite strategic maneuver in the
entire historical record. It's pretty brilliant.
Let's trace his name through the years. We already
mentioned that in 1992, Mike DeWine runs as a
Republican for the class three seat and loses
to the juggernaut. that is John Glenn. Right.
But DeWine doesn't disappear into the background.
Instead, he waits two years. In 1994, he pivots.
He jumps over to run for the volatile class one
seat instead. And it works. It works perfectly.
He wins the class one state with 53 .44 % of
the vote against Democrat Joel Hyatt. He then
defends it successfully in the year 2000, pulling
in 59 .92%. It is such a calculated move. He
tested the waters in one class, found it blocked
by a legacy incumbent, and immediately found
an opening in the other class. It really highlights
the strategic nature of these staggered terms.
Candidates aren't just running against an opponent.
They're running against the specific history
and the specific electorate of that class. Yeah,
that makes a lot of sense. But just as we saw
with Mesenbaum and Taft Jr., the class one seat
rarely offers permanent safety. The modern era
data for class one shows the pendulum swinging
right back. The music starts playing again. Exactly.
In 2006, the electorate shifts its weight again.
Democrat Sherrod Brown challenges Mike DeWine
and unseats the incumbent, winning 56 .16 % of
the vote. The voters decide it is time for a
change, and the musical chairs continue. Brown
manages to hold on to that volatile seat for
quite a while, though. The data shows him successfully
defending it in 2012 with just under 51%, and
again in 2018 with a slightly more comfortable
53 .40%. He definitely built some stability there.
But of course, the music eventually stops again.
The most recent entry we have for the Class 1
election is 2024, and we see yet another incumbent
unseated. The volatility returns. Republican
Bernie Moreno defeats Sherrod Brown, taking 50
.09 % of the vote to Brown's 46 .47%. Looking
purely at the math, impartially, it is just another
massive shift in a seat that fundamentally refuses
to sit still. It really does refuse to sit still.
What blows my mind is the sheer volume of participation
now. Out of more than 5 .5 million... votes cast
in that 2024 race, Marino wins by a margin of
roughly 200 ,000 votes. If we connect this to
the bigger picture, it becomes clear that these
races are frequently decided by incredibly narrow
margins. Yeah. Whether we are looking at 3 million
votes in the 1970s or 5 .5 million votes today.
The gap between the two major parties often hovers
around just a few percentage points. So every
single vote really does matter. Every single
vote becomes critical. Yeah. And that brings
us to one of the most surprising structural forces
hidden in this data. The wildcard third party
candidates. This is the part of the numbers that
completely caught me off guard. When you think
about U .S. Senate races, you generally expect
to see the two main parties dominating the board.
Right. Usually feels like a two person race.
But there are these highly specific, completely
surprising third party data points that just
pop out and demand your attention. Let's go all
the way back to that very first direct election
we talked about. 1914. 1914 for the class three
seat. The Republican Harding got about 49 percent
and the Democrat Hogan got about 39 percent.
But sitting right there in the margins is a progressive
candidate named Arthur. And he pulls some real
numbers. who looked at a brand new democratic
process, looked at the two major parties and
said, no, I'm going with this third option. That
trend of significant third party vote shares
doesn't just stay in the early 20th century.
It continues to appear in highly consequential
modern races. Let's see some examples. Let's
look back at that 1992 class three race where
John Glenn's massive margins finally shrank.
He won with 50 .88 percent to Mike DeWine's 42
.22 percent. OK. But look further across that
exact same row of data. A candidate named Marka
Gravatt, running under the Workers' World Party,
secured an astonishing 6 .89 % of the vote. That
is a big chunk. In raw numbers, that is over
331 ,000 votes. That is wild. The margin of victory
between the Democrat and the Republican in that
specific election was about 415 ,000 votes. So
a third -party candidate pulling over 330 ,000
votes isn't just a fun piece of trivia, it is
a massive factor. Absolutely. It represents a
huge block of the electorate making a very dis
- distinct choice that alters the entire math
of the race. Precisely. And we see it happen
again just two years later. In the 1994 class
one race, the one where Mike DeWine successfully
pivots and wins his seat, DeWine gets 53 .44
percent and the Democrat gets 39 .23 percent.
And who is the third party there? An independent
candidate named Joe Slovenak pulls in 7 .33 percent
of the vote. That is over 252 ,000 people casting
their ballot for an independent. That is incredible.
Why it matters is that in a state as large as
Ohio, these aren't just statistical anomalies
or rounding errors. These third party margins
represent hundreds of thousands of voters. Right.
If a race is frequently decided by one or two
percentage points, a candidate who can capture
seven percent of the electorate is holding the
keys to the kingdom. They absolutely are. They
have the mathematical power to act as spoilers.
They force the major candidates to change their
platforms, adapt their messaging and sometimes
radically alter the outcome of the election just
by having their. name on the ballot. It proves
that the binary narrative of simply Democrat
versus Republican often misses the deeper complexities
of what the voters were actually trying to say.
Those hundreds of thousands of independent and
third party votes are a loud, clear signal that
a significant portion of the population is looking
for something outside the traditional columns.
So what does this all mean? We started out looking
at what appeared to be a dry, boring list, just
a sprawling grid of years, names, and percentages.
A very long grid. But when you really take the
time to read it, you realize you aren't just
looking at math. You are looking at the living,
breathing pulse of a state's electorate over
more than a century. That's beautifully put.
You can actually trace the pendulum swings of
public opinion. You can feel the incredible patience
and persistence of candidates who lose by a hair,
wait six grueling years, and run again to finally
claim victory. Like Metzenbaum. Exactly. You
see the massive multi -million vote landslides
that define eras, and you see the razor -thin
margins that change the course of history. The
numbers tell the story of a public constantly
evaluating, checking, and rechecking the people
they send to represent them. It is a remarkable
testament to the power of the voter. And this
raises an important question, one that I think
completely reframes everything we have discussed
today. What's that? We noted at the very beginning
that this entire era of data only exists because
of the 17th Amendment passing in 1913. That amendment
took the power of selecting senators away from
state legislators and gave it directly to the
public. Right. I want you to imagine for a moment
a world where that amendment never passed. What
if state legislatures were still handpicking
these senators in backroom deals rather than
the general public voting at the ballot box?
Oh, wow. How many of these razor -thin popular
vote victories, how many of these dramatic shifts,
unseatings, and intense rivalries would have
been completely erased by legislative maneuvering?
Most of them, probably. Would the record -breaking
mandates of candidates pulling in nearly 3 million
individual votes have even mattered if a few
dozen local politicians were the only ones who
had a say? That really changes how you look at
the data. The trajectory of these seats, and
by extension the trajectory of the entire country,
would have been fundamentally different. That
is wild to think about. The very existence of
this spreadsheet and every single percentage
point we talked about today is a monument to
the direct voice of the people. It truly is.
Thank you so much for joining us on this deep
dive. The next time you find yourself staring
at a supposedly dry wall of data, don't just
skim past it. Take a closer look. Keep exploring
the numbers behind the history, because there
is always an incredible story waiting to be told.