Friday Findings: What do voters actually think about data centers?
It turns out voters think big factories that use lots of water are cool, just not the AI ones.
Welcome to Friday Findings and Happy Juneteenth! Today’s findings cover our brand new Verified Voter Omnibus out this week on how American voters view data centers. You can read the whole findings on our website, but for now let’s dive into the data (centers.)
1. Voters really like the idea of Amazon and old-fashioned manufacturing
Amazon distribution centers and traditional auto or steel factories are overwhelmingly supported by voters when asked about a hypothetical build in their community. Solar and wind follow closely, along with a chip manufacturing plant by a 14-point margin. However, proposals of digital or AI data centers are solidly opposed—with an AI data center ranking below a nuclear power plant.
2. The biggest partisan split on hypothetical construction is green energy
When we break this down by partisanship, we discover the largest partisan gap is green energy. The next most polarizing construction proposals are data centers. Democrats overwhelmingly support a solar or wind farm going up, while Republicans are largely split. Republicans and Democrats significantly divide on data centers, with Democrats staunchly opposed to AI data center construction.
3. Data Center rumors on grid stress and water usage predominate
We next provided negative statements about data centers and asked voters if they considered each one true or false. Every statement was judged true more often, but the highest margins were for placing strain on local power grids and consuming excessive local water.
4. Patrick Ruffini discusses his book in retrospect with the Stubborn Things podcast
Patrick Ruffini went on an AEI podcast to discuss his book Party of the People with Jay Cost and Sean Trende. Give it a listen to hear his thoughts on how the book has held up, and what it might suggest for the upcoming midterm elections. We’ll see you next week!
Professor Continetti, your article in the Wall Street Journal was brilliant, defending the traditional consensus of conservatives. However, mainstream academia and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) still use outdated 20th-century political theology to diagnose the ultimate systemic mutation of the 21st century.
You're using Reagan-era vocabulary to combat a movement that relies purely on populist arbitrage. It's like using a textbook to deal with street riots.
I just published a series of calm, cross-cultural systemic diagnoses on my platform @HumanitiesChina. The link below is to "Duke Huan of Qi vs. Trump: Why the Iranian Quagmire is Just the Prologue."
My latest article—"Boxer Rebellion vs. MAGA: From 'Invulnerability' to 'Make America Great Again'"—is alongside another of my books—"Robbers, Kings, and Bills"—which simplifies the sacred principle of "non-retroactive" governance into a brutal Adam Smithian logic of economic costs: a sovereign state can pursue any grand narrative, but if it refuses to bear the associated costs of modifying the system's code, it degenerates from a monarch into a common robber. https://newmitbbs.com/blog/Mencius_Mold-No-bug
I don't care about vanity likes or algorithmic metrics. My free-market contract is simple: I want to attract 20 highly intelligent subscribers within this elite circle. Once that threshold is reached, more articles in the series on the ultimate ideological purgatory of the executive chain of command—"Scrubman Rubio and Soul Refining Master JD Vance"—will be presented one by one.
Professor, please read the pinned diagnostic blueprint. Let's see if the American Enterprise Institute can still afford genuine strategic intelligence, or if Washington has thoroughly institutionalized its own cognitive decline. https://qubopu.substack.com/p/duke-huan-of-qi-vs-trump-the-iranian?r=6wup96&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web