Welcome to today's deep dive. Hello, everyone.
If you are joining us right now, it means you
have a healthy appetite for discovery. Absolutely.
Whether you are actively prepping for the upcoming
2026 elections or you're just. insanely curious
about the hidden mechanics of American politics,
we have something really special for you today.
We really do. We're looking at a source that
on its surface, I mean, it might look like just
another dry Wikipedia article. It's titled List
of United States Senate Elections in Alaska.
And honestly, if you just scroll through it,
it presents as a massive wall of data. Just rows
and rows. Right. Just decades of rows, names
and election results. It can be a little intimidating
to just look at. But our mission today is to
look way beyond that spreadsheet. We want to
extract the fascinating story of Alaska's political
identity. Because the story is definitely in
there. It really is. Because when you actually
look at the trends inside these numbers, they
hold some incredible surprises. You get to see
how a brand new state. Forms its identity from
scratch, how it rewards extreme loyalty. And
how it occasionally throws a massive unprecedented
curveball into the American political system.
Exactly. OK, let's unpack this. So to really
understand the story the data is telling us,
we have to start with the foundational rules
of the United States Senate. Right. The basics.
Which the source actually outlines right at the
top. The data is structured this way because
the U .S. Constitution allots exactly. two Senate
seats to every state. Completely regardless of
population. Completely regardless. A huge state,
a tiny state, they all get two. And these senators
serve staggered six -year terms. That stagger
is the crucial part of the puzzle, right? It
is. Because they don't want the entire Senate
turning over all at once. Precisely. The Senate
is divided into three classes. The whole goal
is to stagger the terms so that only one -third
of the entire chamber is up for re -election
during any given two -year cycle. Okay, got it.
So when Alaska was officially admitted to the
union in 1959, the state was assigned a class
two seat and a class three seat. But the very
first elections for those seats didn't happen
in 59. Right. They actually took place the year
prior in 1958 in anticipation of statehood. We
also need to factor in the 17th Amendment. Yes.
Crucial context. That was passed way back in
1913, but it fundamentally dictates what we are
looking at today. It does. That amendment is
vital because it ensures that U .S. senators
are elected directly by the voters of each state.
Instead of the state legislature. Exactly. Originally,
they were selected by state legislatures. So
thanks to the 17th Amendment. The spreadsheet
we are analyzing today represents the direct,
unfiltered will of the Alaskan voters from 1958
all the way to the present. It's pure voter data.
It is. And just a quick note before we really
jump into the timeline. Yeah. We aren't here
to play political referee. Oh, definitely not.
Our source material covers Democrats, Republicans,
Independents, Libertarians, Green Party candidates,
you name it. But our deep dive today is going
to look strictly at the electoral mechanics.
Just the numbers. Just the numbers, the voter
behaviors, and the historical shifts. We aren't
taking any sides or endorsing any platforms.
We're just letting the data reveal Alaska's unique
political DNA. I love that. impartiality is the
name of the game here we are just following the
data so set the scene for me we are at the genesis
of alaskan politics it's 1958 right the state
is on the verge of officially joining the union
and they hold their first senate elections how
do the voters react out of the gate it is a massive,
undeniable sweep for the Democratic Party. A
total sweep. And the margins aren't even close.
On the class two side of the ticket, you have
a candidate named Bob Bartlett running against
Republican R .E. Robertson. OK. Bartlett doesn't
just win. He absolutely steamrolls his opponent.
He takes 83 .83 percent of the vote. Wait, over
83 percent? Over 83 percent. That is a nearly
five to one margin in a brand new state. That's
not an election. That's a coronation. It really
is. It's a staggering debut. And meanwhile, looking
at the state's other Senate seat, the class three
seat, Democrat Ernest Gruening wins his race
against Mike Stepovich. Was it as much of a blowout?
It's a slightly tighter race, but Groening still
wins comfortably with 52 .61 % of the vote. Still
a solid majority. What's fascinating here is
the incumbency advantage that begins immediately
in this newly minted state. Oh, right. They get
in and they stay in. You have this initial election
and then the voters simply lock in. They found
their guys and they stuck with them. Exactly.
Bartlett, after that massive 1958 win, goes on
to win again in 1960. Keeping momentum. Yeah,
and then he runs again in 1966, and his margin
shoots back up to an overwhelming 75 .54%. Wow.
Over 75 % for his third run. Over on the class
three side, Ernest Groening holds onto his seat
in 1962. So the early narrative is total stability.
Very stable. Blue state, massive margins, incumbent
safety. But just as you think the political concrete
has dried, we hit the 1968 election. Right. This
is the first major plot twist in the source material.
This is where the mechanics of Alaskan elections
start to look very different from the rest of
the country. Walk us through it. In 1968, the
class three seat is up for grabs. The winner
is a Democrat named Mike Gravel, who takes 45
.13 percent of the vote. OK, 45 percent. The
runner up is a Republican, Elmer Rasmussen, who
gets a respectable chunk. But the real story
is in the others column. Right. The incumbent,
Ernest Gruening, who had held the seat since
1958. didn't actually win his party's nomination.
He was entirely off the main ticket. So what
does he do? He runs as a write -in candidate
in the general election. Which is incredibly
hard to do. And anyone who follows politics knows
that Senate write -in campaigns are usually just
protest theater. They almost never work out.
But Gruning captures an impressive 17 .44 % of
the electorate. That is a massive chunk for a
write -in. Over 17 % of people bypass the printed
names to write them in. To pull nearly a fifth
of the total voting electorate strictly through
a write -in campaign in the late 1960s is a massive
logistical flex. It takes so much effort just
to educate voters on how to do that. Exactly.
It hints at an independent streak in the Alaskan
voter. They are showing early on that they care
just as much, if not more, about the specific
individual as they do about the party label.
That independent streak is going to become a
recurring theme. It definitely will. But first...
The data shows a seismic shift in the state's
overall preference. We transition into what I'm
calling the era of titans. The titans, yes. The
Alaskan Senate delegation turns from blue to
deep red, bringing up two defining names that
dominate this spreadsheet for decades. We're
talking about Ted Stevens in the class two seat
and Frank Murkowski in the class three seat.
The mainstays. The sheer longevity of these two
individuals is historically remarkable. Let's
look at the Ted Stevens juggernaut first. You
have the numbers there. Walk us through this
streak. Stevens first takes the class two seat
in a 1970 special election, winning with 59 .61
percent of the vote. OK, almost 60 percent. And
from there, it is an unbroken winning streak
for decades. He rolls through the elections in
1972, 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996, and 2002. Just
nonstop. That is seven consecutive election victories.
And he wasn't just scraping by either. Yo. Not
at all. He is consistently pulling in overwhelming
majorities. By 2002, he hits his absolute peak
margin, securing an unbelievable 78 .17 % of
the vote. Over 78%. It is total dominance in
the electorate. Here's where it gets really interesting.
While Stevens is locking down these massive statewide
majorities, where are the protest votes going?
That's a great question to ask of the data. Because
the source data shows a sudden rise in strong
third party showings during this exact same period.
That's a crucial detail. In 1996, while Stevens
was cruising to victory, a Green Party candidate
named Jed Whitaker managed to grab 12 .52 % of
the vote. 12 .5 % for the Green Party in a race
where a Republican incumbent was utterly dominant.
It's a huge anomaly for a third party. And it
happens again. In 2002, when Stevens hit that
absolute peak of 78 percent, another Green Party
candidate, Jim Sykes, took 7 .24 percent. It
is a fascinating duality. Yeah. You have massive
incumbent support, but also these highly visible
third party protest votes. Right. And we see
a very similar pattern of stability with the
class three seat during this era. Frank Murkowski
establishes a remarkably steady hand. Following
right in Stevens' footsteps. He first wins the
seat in 1980. And then he just keeps winning
through 1986, 1992 and 1998. Unbroken. Unbroken
streak. Yeah. And just like Stevens, his margins
actually grow over time. Murkowski's vote share
peaks in 1998 at an overwhelming 74 .49 percent.
Nearly 75 percent. So for a solid stretch of
history, you have these two men, Stevens and
Murkowski, effectively locking down the state's
Senate representation. They were institutions.
It is the definition of a safe game. It is. When
we synthesize this era, the numbers reflect a
period of immense voter loyalty. Long -term incumbency
creates a powerful feedback loop. Well, voters
get used to a specific name representing them
on the national stage. The familiar names become
synonymous with the state's interests. That familiarity
breeds deep trust, and that trust translates
into these towering percentage points at the
ballot box. It becomes a habit to vote for them.
Exactly. A deeply ingrained voter habit. But
as any political historian will tell you, no
era lasts forever. No, they certainly do not.
And that brings us to the craziest part of this
data, the sudden end of the certainty. After
decades of predictable blowout victories, the
spreadsheet suddenly shifts into an era of razor
-thin margins and historic anomalies. The ground
completely shifts under their feet. It starts
with the 2008 election for the class two seat.
The Ted Stevens era comes to an end in an absolute
nail -biter. After nearly 40 years in office.
Exactly. After decades, Stevens is defeated by
Democrat Mark Begich. But look at the margin.
It is incredibly tight. Begich gets 47 .77 %
of the vote. Stevens gets 46 .52%. A difference
of roughly one percentage point. Barely a margin
at all. To see a decades long titan unseated
by such a tiny fraction of the electorate is
stunning. It perfectly illustrates how quickly
voter sentiment can tip. You go from nearly 80
percent to losing the seat entirely. Just a wild
swing. But if 2008 was a tight race, the 2010
election for the class three seat defies modern
political logic entirely. It really does. This
is the absolute masterpiece of the data set.
Lisa Murkowski had first won the seat in 2004.
Right. But in 2010, she doesn't secure the Republican
nomination. Which usually means your campaign
is over. Exactly. So she attempts a write -in
campaign for the general election. Now, keep
in mind what we discussed about Ernest Gruening's
write -in campaign back in 1968. Right. The 17
percent. Gruening pulled an impression. of 17
.44%, but he still lost the race handily. Lisa
Murkowski's 2010 campaign is a different beast
entirely. The numbers here are just wild. As
a write -in candidate, Murkowski secures 36 .08
% of the vote. 36%, for a name not even on the
ballot. She beats the official Republican candidate,
Joe Miller, who gets 35 .27%, and the Democratic
candidate, Scott McAdams, who gets 23 .32%. Unbelievable.
She wins the United States Senate seat by a fraction
of a percentage point over the official nominee,
and her name was not printed on the ballot. If
we connect this to the bigger picture, we really
have to pause and appreciate the... statistical
unlikelihood of this event. It's basically unheard
of. To mobilize that many voters across a state
as massive and geographically complex as Alaska
and get them to correctly write your name on
a blank line. It is a staggering anomaly in modern
American political history. It's a huge mechanical
challenge. Huge. It perfectly echoes that independent
spirit we saw glimpses of back in 1968. But this
time it was fully realized. It proves definitively
that Alaskan voters are deeply willing to buck
traditional party lines to support a specific
individual. They looked at the traditional two
party ballot structure, rejected it and essentially
forced their preferred candidate into office
through sheer willpower. That's exactly what
the data shows. It really sets the stage for
the modern era of Alaskan politics, where independent
voices carry massive weight. The stability of
the Stevens and early Murkowski era is definitely
in the rearview mirror by this point. Without
a doubt. Mark Begich, who barely unseated Stevens
in 2008, finds his time in the class two seat
is very short -lived. A single term. Right. Just
one term later, in 2014, Republican Dan Sullivan
flips the seat back to red. Sullivan wins with
47 .96 % to Begich. which is 45 .83%. Again,
we are looking at incredibly tight margins. Just
a couple of percentage points. But look at what
happens when Sullivan defends that seat in the
2020 election. He doesn't face a traditional
Democratic challenger. No, he doesn't. He faces
an independent candidate named Al Gross. And
Gross secures a highly notable 41 .19 % of the
vote. 41 % for an independent. A massive chunk
of Alaskans chose someone explicitly outside
the traditional two -party system. And we see
that exact same multi -party chaos brewing in
the class three seat. Look at Lisa Murkowski's
continuing saga in her 2016 re -election campaign.
Okay, let's look at 2016. She wins the seat with
44 .36 % of the vote. But the field she was up
against is fascinating. It really is a crowded
field. The runner -up wasn't a Democrat. It was
Joe Miller. the same guy from 2010, but this
time running as a libertarian. A libertarian
runner -up. And he pulls in 29 .16 % of the vote,
nearly 30%. Incredible. Then you have an independent
candidate, Margaret Stock, taking 13 .23%. And
the Democrats. The official Democrat, Ray Metcalf,
came in fourth with just 11 .62%. So the traditional
Democratic and Republican binary is completely
fractured in that race. You have four totally
distinct blocks of voters putting double digit
percentages. Which perfectly explains the massive
system change noted in the 2022 election data.
Ah, yes. This is the latest twist in the source
material. Yes. There is a specific crucial note
attached to the 2022 class three election data.
What's it say? It states that the election was
held using instant runoff voting and results
from the maximum round are shown. So we aren't
just looking at a new candidate. We are looking
at a fundamentally different way of counting
votes. Break down the mechanics of that for us.
Sure. In a traditional American election, you
pick one candidate and whoever gets the most
votes wins the seat, even if they only get 34
percent in a crowded field. Right. Plurality
wins. But instant runoff voting, which is often
called ranked choice voting, allows voters to
rank their choices from favorite to least favorite.
Rank them one, two, three, four. Exactly. If
no candidate gets a clear majority, meaning over
50 % in the first count, the candidate with the
fewest votes is eliminated. And their votes don't
just disappear. No, they don't. Those voters'
second choices are then distributed to the remaining
candidates. This process happens in consecutive
rounds until someone crosses that 50 % threshold.
So looking at the data for 2022, Lisa Murkowski
defeats fellow Republican Kelly Chewbacca. Yes.
The final tally in that maximum round shows Murkowski
at 53 .7 in 0 % to Chewbacca's 46 .30%. Right.
That maximum round refers to the final tally
after all the lower ranked candidates, the Democrats,
the independents, have been eliminated and their
voters' subsequent preferences have been reallocated.
It totally changes the math. This system completely
alters campaign strategy. You don't just want
to be a voter's first choice. You desperately
want to be their second choice if you can't be
their first. You have to appeal to everyone.
Exactly. It heavily discourages extreme negative
campaigning. Because you can't afford to alienate
the base of the person you are running against.
You might really need their votes in round two
or three. Think about how differently you might
vote in your own local elections if you knew
your second choice mattered. just as much as
your first. It completely frees you up. And empowers
the voter to support an independent or a third
party candidate without that traditional fear
of throwing their vote away. If your independent
candidate comes in last, your vote simply transfers
to your preferred major party candidate. It is
a totally different way of interacting with a
ballot. It is a paradigm shift. And it brings
our timeline right up to the present day. According
to the source, the next scheduled election for
the class two seat is coming up very soon in
2026. Right around the corner. And the class
three seat will be up again in 2028. So what
does this all mean? It's quite a journey. We
started with a seemingly dry Wikipedia spreadsheet,
but we've uncovered a genuinely wild ride of
political evolution. When you synthesize 60 plus
years of this data, you see that Alaska's Senate
election history. is a true paradox a paradox
yes on one hand it is a state defined by immense
unbreakable loyalty we saw decades -long incumbents
who won by sweeping overwhelming majorities year
after year the titans right they established
a level of stability most states never see But
the flip side of that coin is pure electoral
chaos. Precisely. It is also a state that regularly
empowers massive third -party votes. It is a
state that executed one of the only successful
write -in campaigns in modern Senate history.
That 2010 run is still mind -blowing. And it's
a state that frequently elevates independent
challengers over traditional party nominees.
And ultimately... It's a state that just recently
rewrote its fundamental voting mechanics to an
instant runoff system just to better capture
the complex nuance of its voters' preferences.
It's a political ecosystem that simply refuses
to be put into a neat little box. This raises
an important question for you to consider. Yeah.
As we look ahead to 2026 and as instant runoff
voting becomes more embedded in their culture,
consider this. Does a system that allows for
historic write -ins and consistently strong independent
showings suggest that the rigid two -party system
is fundamentally incompatible with the modern
voters' mindset? Oh, that's a fascinating angle.
And if a state like Alaska can consistently rewrite
the rulebook on how candidates win, how long
will it be before the rest of the country's voting
mechanisms follow suit? That is an amazing thought
to end on. It really makes you wonder what the
spreadsheets of the future are going to look
like and whether the rest of us will be ranking
our choices. the years to come we all have to
wait and see thank you so much for joining us
on this deep dive keep questioning the data keep
looking for the human stories hidden inside the
numbers and keep exploring the world around you
we'll catch you on the next one