Featured Key
Senate Races
Every race uses the same dimensions and evidence standard. Campaign statements are identified separately from legislative or government records.
Michigan
Both nominees now support a construction pause, but they differ sharply on federal governance, public control, and the role of private AI companies.
Compare the candidates →Ohio
Data-center construction and household power bills are already central to the contest, with both candidates refining their positions.
Compare the candidates →Texas
The race contrasts tighter infrastructure conditions with a more market-led energy and technology posture, while leaving unsupported dimensions open.
Compare the candidates →North Carolina
Both candidates address energy affordability, while taking different approaches to data-center expansion and national AI competition.
Compare the candidates →Maine
Jackson proposes stronger cost and labor conditions, while Collins favors case-by-case development and public computing investment.
Compare the candidates →Georgia
Ossoff emphasizes ratepayer and high-risk AI safeguards. Collins emphasizes faster permitting, energy supply, and business-led growth.
Compare the candidates →Iowa
Hinson has a direct pro-growth AI agenda. Turek's worker and competition platform is detailed, but several AI-specific positions remain unscored.
Compare the candidates →Featured Key
House Races
The House set uses the same public structure as the Senate set. It prioritizes confirmed major-party nominees and enough current evidence to place both candidates on at least one AI-related dimension.
Arizona 1st
An open-seat contrast on power infrastructure, federal AI rules, and the conditions attached to technology growth.
Compare the candidates →Arizona 6th
Energy affordability and water constraints shape competing approaches to Arizona's data-center expansion.
Compare the candidates →California 22nd
Worker and community safeguards compared with a lighter federal approach to emerging-technology rules.
Compare the candidates →Colorado 8th
Colorado's AI law, data-center growth, and competing approaches to federal regulation create a direct contrast.
Compare the candidates →Iowa 1st
Worker preparation and education compared with congressional scrutiny of AI's electricity demand.
Compare the candidates →Iowa 3rd
A worker and resource lens compared with a detailed agenda for AI research, agriculture, and guardrails.
Compare the candidates →Michigan 7th
Consumer and infrastructure safeguards compared with a congressional record favoring innovation and oversight.
Compare the candidates →New Jersey 7th
Clean-energy and consumer protections compared with a narrower federal role and domestic innovation.
Compare the candidates →New York 17th
Hudson Valley infrastructure concerns alongside a congressional record on synthetic media and chatbots.
Compare the candidates →Ohio 9th
Industrial investment and grid planning compared with a market-led energy and regulatory posture.
Compare the candidates →Pennsylvania 7th
Worker power and public safeguards compared with evidence-led adoption and narrower federal rules.
Compare the candidates →Pennsylvania 8th
Stricter public scrutiny compared with a federal proposal preserving local siting authority.
Compare the candidates →Pennsylvania 10th
Grid and consumer oversight compared with faster energy development and limited federal intervention.
Compare the candidates →Virginia 2nd
National security, workforce capacity, and American AI leadership in a data-center-intensive state.
Compare the candidates →Washington 3rd
Worker-centered technology policy compared with a business, workforce, and energy-growth posture.
Compare the candidates →Wisconsin 3rd
A temporary construction pause compared with continued development under local conditions.
Compare the candidates →This is a focused research set, not an exhaustive election list or a forecast. Races are included when the nominees are set and the public record supports useful candidate profiles on AI, data centers, energy, workers, privacy, or technology governance.