Both parties are campaigning against data centers in the toss-up races that could decide Congress

In Pennsylvania's 8th district, the Republican incumbent and his Democratic challenger are both running ads against the data center industry ^[2][3]. According to Wired, the incumbent, Rob Bresnahan, holds data-center-related stocks and used to be friendly to the industry ^[2].

In our view, a candidate who owns the industry's stock and still runs against it expects the issue to move votes. Wired's Molly Taft wrote that polling shows pocketbook issues are likely to top voters' minds, but that data centers are "a potent-enough issue that they could swing tight races" ^[19]. The campaigns connect the two through the power bill. In Ohio, Sherrod Brown's ads blame Senator Jon Husted for welcoming data centers to the state and driving energy bills up, and Brown calls Husted "the face of data centers in Ohio" ^[11].

Many Republicans are breaking with President Donald Trump on data centers, Wired reported ^[8]. In several races the fight is over which candidate is less friendly to the industry. Taft counted at least five candidates whose opponents have given them a "Data Center [Name]" nickname ^[9]. In Wisconsin's close governor's race, Republican Tom Tiffany's ads call Democrat David Crowley "Data Center David", even though Wired describes the two as having little daylight between them ^[14]. In Wisconsin's 3rd district, Democrat Rebecca Cooke's ads go after Republican Derrick Van Orden for taking money from developers. He has hit back by claiming Cooke is "responsible for covering up pristine Wisconsin farmland" with data centers ^[5].

We think this changes what an election result means for a team whose plan depends on capacity that has not been built yet. When both candidates run against the industry, the winner takes office having promised the same thing. What an ad says and how a candidate voted can differ. In Ohio's 9th, Democrat Marcy Kaptur's ads call Derek Merrin "Data Center Derek" over tax breaks for data centers, and Merrin says she is misrepresenting his vote on a broader bill ^[4]. The column does not report any project that has been delayed or cancelled because of these campaigns ^[17].

We'd sort any capacity a team depends on by two questions. The first is whether the capacity is running today or is still a go-live date. The second is whether its state has a moratorium in force or promised, or data center ads in a close race. Michigan, Iowa and Texas all have toss-up Senate races where the issue has come up ^[13]. Capacity that is already running in a quiet state carries ordinary vendor risk. In a contested state, we think the main exposure for running capacity is power pricing, since energy bills are the campaigns' main line of attack ^[11]. A planned site in a quiet state can stay on the roadmap as usual.

The hard case is a planned site in a contested state. Its go-live date now depends partly on the November 3 results ^[16], and we would price a second region for it. That backup costs money and may never be used: candidates have promised at least 20 times as many hyperscale moratoriums as have been signed ^[18].