OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Data Center Backlash Influences US Midterm Elections

7 sources · updated 2026-10-15
Left 57% Center 29% Right 14%
4 left · 2 center · 1 right

What happened

Local opposition to data-center construction has become a campaign issue ahead of the November 3 U.S. midterm elections, with residents citing higher utility costs, water use, cooling-system noise, on-site generators, and limited permanent jobs. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink told CNBC that a construction moratorium would put the country “in a recession,” because “so much of our economy is based on the buildout of this capex” for AI infrastructure. A YouGov/Economist poll released October 12 found that among people living near data centers the share planning to vote Democratic rose from 54 percent in May to 61 percent. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs enacted a three-year pause on new tax breaks for data-center projects, and races in Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, and Texas have featured competing positions on the facilities. Trackers report at least 268 local opposition groups in 37 states and more than $260 billion in planned projects canceled.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 7 articles

3 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 3 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Larry Fink, Chloe Autio, Cleanview Research, Chris Millay and President Trump
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: YouGov/Economist survey, dataset, poll
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 1 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 12, 23:28 UTC by CBS News, naming its source. First document in the first report, from CBS News (dataset).
Not counted 2
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage is simply more complete on the vote, so readers of right-leaning outlets would not know that data-center neighbors are moving Democratic this cycle. The Democratic share among people living near data centers rose to 61 percent since May, per Mother Jones. Right-leaning coverage in the Daily Wire instead calls the issue "on the back burner" while politicians chase votes. Left-leaning coverage leads with community opposition, strained power and water, and candidates changing position across both parties. Right-leaning coverage leads with the claim that "America needs data centers" and then offers relocation ideas such as stadium parking lots. The coverage on both sides never asks how much of a nearby household's electric bill comes from the data center itself.
Bottom line

You can read the Daily Wire's entire data-center column and never learn that 61 percent of nearby residents now plan to vote Democratic.

The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Share of people living near data centers who plan to vote Democratic rose from 54 percent to 61 percent since May (YouGov/Economist) numberin Mother Jones · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said a data-center moratorium would put the country in a recession official statementin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning sources frame the buildout as an unaccountable industrial expansion that imposes concentrated local costs—energy and water strain, noise, pollution, and few lasting jobs—while developers often move faster than community input. They treat the YouGov/Economist shift among nearby residents, hundreds of opposition groups, and politicians’ sudden attention as evidence that quality-of-life concerns are realigning voters, especially in red states that host most new projects. Coverage notes that President Trump has called towns that refuse data centers “backwards and poor” and the backlash a “sick conspiracy,” leaving Republicans without a coherent message even as some GOP candidates soften support and Democrats campaign on pauses or stricter rules. Fink’s recession warning is reported alongside his claim that “most of it is on misinformation” and that data centers “are creating more new jobs than ever before.”
The Right View
The right-leaning source argues that America needs data centers for its tech-driven economy but that they should not be forced on unwilling communities, and that politicians are demagoguing the issue for votes rather than solving it. It proposes pairing tech capital with unused land such as sports-stadium parking lots so companies fund stadiums while placing facilities underground, burying centers to eliminate visual and noise impacts while preserving green space and lowering cooling costs, and siting them in energy-rich areas like the Permian Basin where natural gas is abundant and cheap. The piece contends that such matching of private money with existing infrastructure can deliver revenue and jobs without taxpayer subsidies or blighting rural towns, and that “it is better politics to run on a problem than to fix one.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that poorly consulted construction imposes real, concentrated costs on neighbors—few permanent jobs, strained utilities, noise, and pollution—producing measurable grassroots backlash, as shown by the nearby-resident poll shift, hundreds of opposition groups, and already-canceled projects that have forced politicians in both parties to reverse course. The right’s strongest argument is that the facilities are indispensable to AI-scale growth whose capital spending is measured in the trillions, so the answer is better location and design (energy-rich sites, underground placement, mixed-use pairing) rather than a halt that Fink said would produce a recession. The central unresolved tension is whether the national economic and technological case for rapid buildout can be met without overriding the local communities that currently reject the physical footprint.

7 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.