By Adam Mills
AI Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Data centers became one of the most visible targets of voter resistance to the AI boom in the 2026 midterms. Across 41 local ballot-measure contests, the side opposing development prevailed in all but one.
But some post-election polling suggests that data centers and AI weren't really that much of a priority for voters. Brent Buchanan, founder and CEO of Cygnal, a Republican polling and research firm, discussed this apparent disconnect during a Newsweek webinar on Tuesday.
Read More on AI Politics
“AI was literally the bottom option at one percent of what drove their vote,” Buchanan said.
Asked which industries Democrats should crack down on after the election, however, respondents placed AI companies and data centers alongside health insurers and pharmaceutical companies, Buchanan said.
Buchanan joined Nathaniel Persily, a Stanford Law School professor and co-director of the Stanford Law AI Initiative; Nick Penniman, founder of Issue One, a crosspartisan political reform nonprofit; and Andrew Mamo, a communications adviser with the Bench, an organization that recruits and supports Democratic candidates.
Gabriel Snyder, Newsweek’s executive editor, enterprise, moderated the Nov. 10 webinar, “The AI Election: How Artificial Intelligence Shaped the 2026 Midterms.” The virtual event followed the release of Newsweek’s AI Policy Scorecard assessing lawmakers’ positions ahead of the midterms.
...
Mamo, who advised campaigns in Texas, Michigan and several congressional races, heard voters question who would benefit from a rapidly changing economy.
“They weren’t really mad about any one very specific thing happening with AI. They were mad that they felt like the world was spinning faster and less and less in their control,” Mamo said.
Persily connected those frustrations to longstanding distrust of major technology companies, particularly social media platforms. Public warnings from AI executives about job losses and other risks had reinforced anxieties about the technology’s potential consequences.
“If you look at the areas that passed these data center moratoria or otherwise restrictive votes on data centers, you don’t see much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans, at least in their votes,” Persily said.
Voters approved 27 local measures restricting data center development or expressing opposition to it, while rejecting 13 proposals that would have supported or facilitated construction. The lone exception came in Harwood, North Dakota, where voters rejected a proposed review requirement affecting data centers and other developments.
Americans also raised concerns about electricity bills, water consumption and environmental impacts. Persily cautioned against dismissing those objections as irrational, even as he argued that broader anxieties about AI influenced how people viewed the facilities.
In focus groups, Buchanan heard participants describe data centers as “soulless” buildings where “nobody actually works.” Some apparently wondered whether the facilities would expand surveillance or allow technology companies to collect more personal information. Even explaining that data centers help power services such as GPS navigation and Netflix did little to persuade some participants.
“'Those all seem to be working pretty fine for me right now. Why do we need more data centers?'” Buchanan recalled voters responding.
In the webinar discussion, Mamo argued technology executives had failed to explain how AI could benefit ordinary people, while also publicly warning about widespread job displacement and other potential disruptions.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who lost his reelection bid, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who won another term, had both become more skeptical of data center development as Election Day approached, Mamo noted. He interpreted their shifts as signs of mounting public resistance, while acknowledging that he had not seen their internal polling.
...
Leading the Future, a political network backed by prominent Silicon Valley investors and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman, announced about $100 million in backing when it launched in August of 2025. Its affiliated groups supported candidates from both parties, seeking to shape the political environment for AI development and regulation.
Penniman questioned how much regulation some AI industry leaders actually want.
“'You can regulate us, set rules for us, but don’t really. Don’t really do too much,'” he said, characterizing their message. “They’re going to play both sides of the aisle as much as possible to make sure that happens.”
Penniman also said that technology companies have grown accustomed to operating with limited oversight.
“These people do not understand what it means to be governed and regulated on behalf of the public good and public outcomes and public decency,” he said.
In Michigan, younger union members told Mamo they worried about what AI could mean for the careers they were beginning.
“There was so much stress and fear about what it means for my workplace, especially among young people, and frankly, working class young people,” he said.
Some apparently shared concern about spending years acquiring skills and taking on debt, only for AI to eliminate opportunities in their chosen fields.
Persily reported similar anxieties among Stanford students, including technically skilled programmers concerned about displacement.
Snyder asked Mamo how policymakers could respond to workers’ fears.
“The honest answer is I don’t think we have a robust policy response set of answers yet,” Mamo replied.
He pointed to workforce training and development and possible rules around AI-related layoffs, though he acknowledged the difficulty of enforcing such requirements or identifying when automation was responsible for job loss.
Penniman expressed similar frustration, warning that the government is doing too little to prepare for potentially widespread changes to employment. He questioned whether proposed universal basic income payments would provide enough financial support and called for more serious planning around the future workforce. He argued against a gradual, issue-by-issue approach to AI regulation.
“I think we need to go big. I mean, I understand the idea of starting with kids but I also think that, you know, time is gonna move very quickly here,” Penniman said.
He advocated for comprehensive federal oversight, including product-liability rules and a dedicated agency capable of evaluating AI systems before deployment.
Persily said existing liability law could address some specific harms but would be inadequate for the existential risk posed by AI. He also pointed to pre-deployment testing and incident reporting as additional safeguards.
Mamo was wary of treating some opposition to data centers as a national mandate.
“There are parts of the country that are looking for economic development and there’s an opportunity here,” he said. “I don’t think banning America from building these things is a good idea.”
Penniman compared the backlash to the Industrial Revolution, whose disruption of work and concentration of wealth fueled decades of political conflict.
“I think we’re just seeing the beginning of AI driving election cycles,” he said.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines