In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke and Nate Silver open up the mailbag and answer listener questions about politics and polling. They cover American skepticism of artificial intelligence — according to one poll, only 9 percent of Americans say it will do more good than harm to society — and consider what to make of former president Donald Trump’s gains on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in early Republican presidential primary polling.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

Passengers walk through the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Nov. 7, 2025.
Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker
What To Know As Hundreds of Flights Are Grounded Across the U.S. – an Air Travel Expert Explains
Nov 12, 2025
Major airports across the United States were subject to a 4% reduction in flights on Nov. 7, 2025, as the government shutdown began to affect travelers.
The move by the Federal Aviation Administration is intended to ease pressure on air traffic controllers, many of whom have been working for weeks without pay after the government shut down on Oct. 1. While nonessential employees were furloughed, workers deemed essential, such as air traffic controllers, have continued to do their jobs.
But what does that mean for the many Americans who take to the skies every day? To find out, The Conversation U.S. spoke with Laurie A. Garrow, a civil aviation expert at Georgia Tech.
What do we know about the FAA’s plans so far?
The first thing to note is that things can change fast. But as of this morning, 4% of flights are being canceled across 40 “high-volume” airports. The list is publicly available, but it includes most of the big hubs across the United States, such as Atlanta, New York’s airports, Chicago O'Hare, Los Angeles International and Dallas/Fort Worth.
The plan is to ramp this up to 10% by Nov. 14 should the shutdown extend that long.
The FAA, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the airlines are working together on the details of which flights and routes are affected – and this will no doubt be monitored as the days go on.
But they are trying to make the cancellations in a way that cause the least disruption to customers.
So we are looking at cuts to domestic, not international, flights – flights across the Atlantic, Pacific and to Latin America are not, for now at least, subject to cuts.
The 4% of cancellations we are seeing are really targeting the high-frequency routes. This should help mitigate the impact. For example, typically American Airlines flies nine flights a day from Miami to Orlando, but they are planning to fly eight this weekend.
And carriers are looking at reducing regional flights. For example, my mom lives near Erie, Pennsylvania, where American Airlines flies three daily flights to their hub in Charlotte – I would expect that to go down to two, or one.
But the FAA was clear that it wasn’t going to cut flights to markets entirely, just reduce them.
What will this mean for existing flights?
For starters, you are going to see more passengers on them. It is fortunate that we are in the lull before Thanksgiving. This isn’t like the summer. There is more slack in the system – so there are extra seats available. If one flight gets canceled on a busy route, it will at this stage be fairly easy to accommodate on another flight.
And I expect customers will be asked to get to airports a little earlier than they would normally.
But people should expect more delays on existing flights. This is because of the way we maintain safety in the air transportation system. Air traffic control can only safely watch a certain number of flights. So when you have someone not at work, or a reduction in number of controllers, you will need to reduce the number of airplanes in the sky. You can’t ask a controller to watch, say, 20 flights when they usually watch 10. So what you do is put in more ground delay programs to limit the number of aircraft coming into or out of an airport. This causes delays but is necessary in peak periods.
United Airlines flights are lined up for takeoff at Newark Liberty International Airport on Nov. 7, 2025. Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty ImagesWhat impact will this have on airlines?
At 4%, probably not too much of an impact. When you look at the list of airports affected, it is balanced from the point of view that many are large hubs and the pain is being shared across all U.S. carriers.
As for the impact on other types of businesses, at the moment it is mainly the industries that air transportation supports. According to the International Air Transport Association, the air transport sector in the U.S. – covering airlines, airports and tourism enabled by aviation –contributes about US$1.3 trillion, or about 4.7%, to GDP and supports about 7.6 million jobs. If these wider sectors are severely affected, it could create a longer-term impact on the economy.
And if this continues into the holiday season?
That is when it will get painful for the carriers. If we are looking at reduction of 10% going into the holiday season with additional delays, then that is when the real pain will be felt.
Will this affect how Americans choose to travel?
Air travel is what I call an emotional mode of transport – we use it for the events that are most significant in our life, such as big family meet-ups, holidays and major face-to-face business deals. So this may affect how people choose to travel going into the holiday season if it is more difficult to get people back to their families in time.
Robert Isom, CEO of American Airlines, said on Nov. 7 that they are seeing an impact on bookings, with people postponing and rescheduling travel.
I certainly think for people looking at a 500- to 600-mile trip, the option of traveling by car is looking more appealing right now.
Will passengers be compensated for canceled flights?
Typically, compensation depends on whether the delay or cancellation was within the airline’s control. The U.S. Department of Transportation has created a dashboard showing “what services U.S. airlines provide to mitigate passenger inconveniences when the cause of a cancellation or delay was due to circumstances within the airline’s control.”
However, delays and cancellations caused by ATC staffing shortages are not considered to be within the airline’s control, and it is up to each airline to decide if and how they will compensate passengers.
As of Nov. 7, many airlines had announced they were allowing customers to change their flights or request a refund without penalty, including nonrefundable fares such as basic economy.
After all, it is in their interest, too, that people continue to fly.
Typically, major carriers offer more services for delayed and canceled flights within their control than low-cost carriers.
A Southwest Airlines plane taxis in front of the air traffic control tower at Los Angeles International Airport. Mario Tama/Getty ImagesIs there any precedent for this? What happened then?
There is no real precedent for what we are seeing: a 4% to 10% reduction across the board due to a government shutdown. But we have seen major disruptions, such as after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and during the pandemic, when COVID-19 ran through flight attendants and pilots before the holidays – that caused flight cancellations and delays.
Historically, when we have seen something like this, we have seen consumer behavior change for a short period. After 9/11, when U.S. travelers had the hassle of increased security, there was a shift to more automobile travel for those 500- to 600-mile journeys.
What advice would you give would-be flyers now?
First off, download the app for the airport and airline carrier so you get up-to-date, reliable information. And if you can book for a day earlier than you normally would for a major event, do so – it provides a buffer in case your flight is delayed or canceled.
And try to avoid connections at all costs. The fewer legs, the fewer things can go wrong.
Also, don’t check bags if you can. There is nothing worse than getting to an airport, finding your flight is canceled, and then having to wait for your luggage to get returned.
Laurie Garrow is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
What To Know As Hundreds of Flights Are Grounded Across the U.S. – an Air Travel Expert Explains was originally published by The Conversation and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Thank You For Upholding The Constitution
Nov 12, 2025
What is appropriate to say to those who are serving?
In a hotel lobby on a recent weekend, I walked by a man in fatigues as an older man approached him and said, “Thank you for your service.” The older man added, “I bet not too many people tell you that now.”
The soldier didn’t speak. I kept walking.
I’ve largely stopped randomly thanking service members; it often seems to make both of us uncomfortable. In private, some veterans have told me this ritual annoys them. So as I went about my day, that scene replayed in my mind—with curiosity attached.
What is appropriate to say to an active service member in times when an authoritarian is attempting to subvert our Constitution—and when federal agents (often indistinguishable in fatigues) are the agents used by an authoritarian to do so?
How might I borrow from the anti-authoritarian playbook—expressing gratitude while reminding all of us how fragile our freedoms are?
Here’s the response I landed on, from the heart:
Thank you for upholding the Constitution.
This simple statement shows gratitude for service and recalls the oath.
A quick refresher on the oath taken by those who work for the federal government, the military, and many local law-enforcement roles:
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The Oath of Office (for officers):
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
Enlisted people are in a pickle right now.
They swear to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the orders of the President and their officers. What happens when orders contradict the Constitution? We’ve seen this question arise with National Guard deployments in U.S. cities.
ICE agents take similar oaths. We’ve seen some enthusiastically obey presidential directives while discarding constitutional protections—especially around the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements for arrests, detentions, and entry into homes or businesses. We’ve also seen Fifth Amendment concerns about access to counsel and due process—deportations without hearings. Yes, DHS disputes these are violations. Judges have overwhelmingly found that ICE has violated the Constitution.
I believe the judges—many appointed by the very President whose directives are at issue.
We are living in a time of constitutional crisis. What will we decide?
To give up our freedom for the feeling of safety from (insert the thing you most fear losing)?
Or to remember that freedom is what makes us American, creates opportunity for all, and reject the propaganda that only one man (the authoritarian) can save us?
How are you preparing to respond?
Chicago offers a model of neighbors acting together. Using whistle-blowing networks, residents stand vigil outside an ICE detention center, filming to document who is being held before people are disappeared. They’ve trained themselves to respond nonviolently and effectively to constitutional violations. Accountability is not far off.
Our ability to act together, to care for each other, and to stand clearly for our principles is what will ultimately win. Authoritarians don’t live forever. But We the People endure—if we choose to.
Thank You For Upholding The Constitution was first published on Debilyn Molineaux's Substack platform and republished with permission.
Debilyn Molineaux is a storyteller, collaborator & connector. For 20 years, she led cross-partisan organizations. She currently holds several roles, including catalyst for JEDIFutures.org and podcast host of Terrified Nation. She also works with the Center for Collaborative Democracy, which is home to the Grand Bargain Project as a way to unify Americans by getting unstuck on six big issues, all at the same time. She previously co-founded BridgeAlliance, Living Room Conversations, and the National Week of Conversation. You can learn more about her work on LinkedIn.
Keep ReadingShow less

Ronald L. Hirsch writes how America’s founding principles demand government action to ensure a sufficient level of food, housing, education, and health care for all citizens so they have an equal opportunity to pursue their rights.
Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial
Food Should Be a Fundamental Right; Extreme Wealth Is Not
Nov 11, 2025
There is no argument between Democrats and Republicans—even of the MAGA variety—that we live in a country of great inequality regarding a number of essential aspects of life: money, education, health care, and housing.
The difference between the two is that Republicans feel that if you don't have money, or an education, or good health care, or housing, it's your own fault; government has no responsibility. Democrats feel that it is the government's responsibility to provide each person with the opportunity to pursue their right to life, liberty, and happiness. This dispute is central to the current controversy over SNAP funding during the shutdown.
To find the American answer to this difference in perspectives, I turn once again to the words of the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . .”
Republicans may respond, "What has the Declaration to do with SNAP?"
The answer is in two parts. The first is that food, good health, education, and physical security—i.e., housing—are the necessary preconditions that give people the opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. If you are significantly lacking in any of these preconditions, it makes it almost impossible for a child or an adult to pursue their unalienable rights,
"OK," the Republican may respond, "but what has this to do with the responsibility of government to provide SNAP funding?" To answer that question, we go to the most overlooked section of the Declaration of Independence: that governments exist "to secure these rights." That is the purpose of government; that is its role.
How does the government "secure these rights?" Its role is not to change the inherent inequality that exists in nature, as John Adams made clear when discussing what equality means. But it does mean that the government must do what is necessary to provide all citizens with a true equal opportunity to pursue their "moral right" to equality—to make of their life what they will, to pursue their dreams.
And government meets that responsibility by adopting policies and programs that provide all citizens with equal opportunity. So, for example, I have explained before that when the government provides income to a family with children, this "welfare" is not charity, but rather is providing money so that children obtain the security of food and housing they need to prosper in school. Yes, I know that more is needed than food and secure housing, but if a child is hungry and does not have secure housing, he is guaranteed to do poorly in school.
And so we come to the current impasse over the SNAP program. 42 million adults and children depend on the program to put sufficient food on the table so that they do not go hungry: 62% of those recipients are families with children, and 37% are families with elderly or disabled members.
Trump's position is that their going without food during the shutdown is the Democrats' problem, and he isn't going to do anything. Even when ordered by a court to resume full funding, Trump appealed to the Supreme Court to intervene and has ordered states to stop full SNAP payments.
Not only is Trump's position heartless and inhumane, but it is also against the founding principle of the role of government as stated in the Declaration and as implemented through programs passed by Congress.
Because they are preconditions, sufficient food, together with the opportunity to have a good education, decent housing, and good health care, should be fundamental rights that all citizens have and that the government must provide a meaningful opportunity to access in order to fulfill its purpose to secure the rights of all.
All of this, without question, requires substantial funding by the government. This will either require a substantial redistribution/redirection of current funding levels, or it will require substantial new funding sources for the government. Which brings me to the option of increasing taxes on the extremely wealthy.
Since the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1909, we have had a system of "progressive" income taxation in this country. "Progressive" means that as your income goes up, you pay a higher percentage of your income as taxes to support the government's provision of services for the public good. The reasoning is that the higher your income, the more you can "afford" to pay in taxes and still have enough money to reap the fruits of your labor. Extreme wealth (meaning you have more money than you know what to do with) is not a fundamental right.
Prior to 1986, the top income tax bracket ranged from 50% to 92% except for several years before and during the first years of the depression. Then, in 1987, the top rate was lowered and since then has ranged from 28% to 39.6%.
What changed that brought about this significant decrease in the top rate from the historical average? The only thing that changed was that, since the Reagan years, both the Democrats and Republicans have worked to gain the support of big corporations and the rich. Prior to that, Democrats were truly the party of the working people.
Clearly, the federal government (and states) need more money to provide the services they should be providing both to those in need and to support the public good—and not create more debt. And we know from experience that the rich can be taxed at higher rates without impacting the economy, investment in businesses, etc.
So the question becomes, how much should the extremely wealthy be taxed? I am not an economist and so would not even hazard a guess. The point is that history shows that a substantial increase is certainly economically feasible.
Clearly, what the Trump administration is doing by extending tax cuts for the wealthy and in addition, as reported recently in The New York Times, "The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service are issuing rules that provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax relief to big companies and the ultrarich," is going in the wrong direction—helping the rich and powerful while actually taking away aid from the poor and middle class. As an example, the Medicaid cuts in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill were made to provide the revenue needed to offset Trump's tax cuts for the rich.
Every action by the government should be held up to the Declaration of Independence as a touchstone to determine whether the action is in keeping with American principles or whether it is destructive of those principles. The government should continue to fully fund SNAP during the shutdown.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less

AI is reshaping politics like social media did for Obama. From relational organizing to deepfakes, explore how technology will define the 2026 elections.
Getty Images, adamkaz
Who Will Be the First American Candidate To Harness AI
Nov 11, 2025
Social media has been a familiar, even mundane, part of life for nearly two decades. It can be easy to forget it was not always that way.
In 2008, social media was just emerging into the mainstream. Facebook reached 100 million users that summer. And a singular candidate was integrating social media into his political campaign: Barack Obama. His campaign’s use of social media was so bracingly innovative, so impactful, that it was viewed by journalist David Talbot and others as the strategy that enabled the first term Senator to win the White House.
Over the past few years, a new technology has become mainstream: AI. But still, no candidate has unlocked AI’s potential to revolutionize political campaigns. Americans have three more years to wait before casting their ballots in another Presidential election, but we can look at the 2026 midterms and examples from around the globe for signs of how that breakthrough might occur.
How Obama Did It
Rereading the contemporaneous reflections of the New York Times’ late media critic, David Carr, on Obama’s campaign reminds us of just how new social media felt in 2008. Carr positions it within a now-familiar lineage of revolutionary communications technologies from newspapers to radio to television to the internet.
The Obama campaign and administration demonstrated that social media was different from those earlier communications technologies, including the pre-social internet. Yes, increasing numbers of voters were getting their news from the internet, and content about the then-Senator sometimes made a splash by going viral. But those were still broadcast communications: one voice reaching many. Obama found ways to connect voters to each other.
In describing what social media revolutionized in campaigning, Carr quotes campaign vendor Blue State Digital’s Thomas Gensemer: “People will continue to expect a conversation, a two-way relationship that is a give and take.”
The Obama team made some earnest efforts to realize this vision. His transition team launched change.gov, the website where the campaign collected a “Citizen's Briefing Book” of public comment. Later, his administration built We the People, an online petitioning platform.
But the lasting legacy of Obama’s 2008 campaign, as political scientists Hahrie Han and Elizabeth McKenna chronicled, was pioneering online “relational organizing.” This technique enlisted individuals as organizers to activate their friends in a self-perpetuating web of relationships.
Perhaps because of the Obama campaign’s close association with the method, relational organizing has been touted repeatedly as the linchpin of Democratic campaigns: in 2020, 2024, and today. But research by non-partisan groups like Turnout Nation and right-aligned groups like the Center for Campaign Innovation has also empirically validated the effectiveness of the technique for inspiring voter turnout within connected groups.
The Facebook of 2008 worked well for relational organizing. It gave users tools to connect and promote ideas to the people they know: college classmates, neighbors, friends from work or church. But the nature of social networking has changed since then.
For the past decade, according to Pew Research, Facebook use has stalled and lagged behind YouTube, while Reddit and TikTok have surged. These platforms are less useful for relational organizing, at least in the traditional sense. YouTube is organized more like broadcast television, where content creators produce content disseminated on their own channels in a largely one-way communication to their fans. Reddit gathers users worldwide in forums (subreddits) organized primarily on topical interest. The endless feed of TikTok’s “For You” page disseminates engaging content with little ideological or social commonality. None of these platforms shares the essential feature of Facebook c. 2008: an organizational structure that emphasizes direct connection to people that users have direct social influence over.
AI and Relational Organizing
Ideas and messages might spread virally through modern social channels, but they are not where you convince your friends to show up at a campaign rally. Today’s platforms are spaces for political hobbyism, where you express your political feelings and see others express theirs.
Relational organizing works when one person’s action inspires others to do this same. That’s inherently a chain of human-to-human connection. If my AI assistant inspires your AI assistant, no human notices and one’s vote changes. But key steps in the human chain can be assisted by AI. Tell your phone’s AI assistant to craft a personal message to one friend—or a hundred—and it can do it.
So if a campaign hits you at the right time with the right message, they might persuade you to task your AI assistant to ask your friends to donate or volunteer. The result can be something more than a form letter; it could be automatically drafted based on the entirety of your email or text correspondence with that friend. It could include references to your discussions of recent events, or past campaigns, or shared personal experiences. It could sound as authentic as if you’d written it from the heart, but scaled to everyone in your address book.
Research suggests that AI can generate and perform written political messaging about as well as humans. AI will surely play a tactical role in the 2026 midterm campaigns, and some candidates may even use it for relational organizing in this way.
(Artificial) Identity Politics
For AI to be truly transformative of politics, it must change the way campaigns work. And we are starting to see that in the US.
The earliest uses of AI in American political campaigns are, to be polite, uninspiring. Candidates viewed them as just another tool to optimize an endless stream of email and text message appeals, to ramp up political vitriol, to harvest data on voters and donors, or merely as a stunt.
Of course, we have seen the rampant production and spread of AI-powered deepfakes and misinformation. This is already impacting the key 2026 Senate races, which are likely to attract hundreds of millions of dollars in financing. Roy Cooper, Democratic candidate for US Senate from North Carolina, and Abdul El-Sayed, Democratic candidate for Senate from Michigan, were both targeted by viral deepfake attacks in recent months. This may reflect a growing trend in Donald Trump’s Republican party in the use of AI-generated imagery to build up GOP candidates and assail the opposition.
And yet, in the global elections of 2024, AI was used more memetically than deceptively. So far, conservative and far right parties seem to have adopted this most aggressively. The ongoing rise of Germany’s far-right populist AfD party has been credited to its use of AI to generate nostalgic and evocative (and, to many, offensive) campaign images, videos, and music and, seemingly as a result, they have dominated TikTok. Because most social platforms’ algorithms are tuned to reward media that generates an emotional response, this counts as a double use of AI: to generate content and to manipulate its distribution.
AI can also be used to generate politically useful, though artificial, identities. These identities can fulfill different roles than humans in campaigning and governance because they have differentiated traits. They can’t be imprisoned for speaking out against the state, can be positioned (legitimately or not) as unsusceptible to bribery, and can be forced to show up when humans will not.
In Venezuela, journalists have turned to AI avatars—artificial newsreaders—to report anonymously on issues that would otherwise elicit government retaliation. Albania recently “appointed” an AI to a ministerial post responsible for procurement, claiming that it would be less vulnerable to bribery than a human. In Virginia, both in 2024 and again this year, candidates have used AI avatars as artificial stand-ins for opponents that refused to debate them.
And yet, none of these examples, whether positive or negative, pursue the promise of the Obama campaign: to make voter engagement a “two-way conversation” on a massive scale.
The closest so far to fulfilling that vision anywhere in the world may be Japan’s new political party, Team Mirai. It started in 2024, when an independent Tokyo gubernatorial candidate, Anno Takahiro, used an AI avatar on YouTube to respond to 8,600 constituent questions over a seventeen-day continuous livestream. He collateD hundreds of comments on his campaign manifesto into a revised policy platform. While he didn’t win his race, he shot up to a fifth place finish among a record 56 candidates.
Anno was RECENTLY elected to the upper house of the federal legislature as the founder of a new party with a 100 day plan to bring his vision of a “public listening AI” to the whole country. In the early stages of that plan, they’ve invested their share of Japan’s 32 billion yen in party grants – public subsidies for political parties – to hire engineers building digital civic infrastructure for Japan. They’ve already created platforms to provide transparency for party expenditures, and to use AI to make legislation in the Diet easy, and are meeting with engineers from US-based Jigsaw Labs (a Google company) to learn from international examples of how AI can be used to power participatory democracy.
Team Mirai has yet to prove that it can get a second member elected to the Japanese Diet, let alone to win substantial power, but they’re innovating and demonstrating new ways of using AI to give people a way to participate in politics that we believe is likely to spread.
Organizing with AI
AI could be used in the US in similar ways. Following American federalism’s longstanding model of “laboratories of democracy,” we expect the most aggressive campaign innovation to happen at the state and local level.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is partnering with MIT and Stanford labs to use the AI-based tool deliberation.io to capture wide scale public feedback in city policymaking about AI. Her administration said that using AI in this process allows “the District to better solicit public input to ensure a broad range of perspectives, identify common ground, and cultivate solutions that align with the public interest.”
It remains to be seen how central this will become to Bowser’s expected re-election campaign in 2026, but the technology has legitimate potential to be a prominent part of a broader program to rebuild trust in government. This is a trail blazed by Taiwan a decade ago. The vTaiwan initiative showed how digital tools like Pol.is, which uses machine learning to make sense of real time constituent feedback, can scale participation in democratic processes and radically improve trust in government. Similar AI listening processes have been used in Kentucky, France, and Germany.
Even if campaigns like Bowser’s don’t adopt this kind of AI-facilitated listening and dialog, expect it to be an increasingly prominent part of American public debate. Through a partnership with Jigsaw, Scott Rasmussen's Napolitan Institute will use AI to elicit and synthesize the views of at least five Americans from every Congressional district in a project called “We the People.” Timed to coincide with the country’s 250th anniversary in 2026, expect the results to be promoted during the heat of the midterm campaign and to stoke interest in this kind of AI-assisted political sensemaking.
In the year where we celebrate the American republic’s semiquincentennial and continue a decade-long debate about whether or not Donald Trump and the Republican party remade in his image is fighting for the interests of the working class, representation will be on the ballot in 2026. Midterm election candidates will look for any way they can get an edge. For all the risks it poses to democracy, AI presents a real opportunity, too, for politicians to engage voters en masse while factoring their input into their platform and message. Technology isn’t going to turn an uninspiring candidate into Barack Obama, but it gives any aspirant to office the capability to try to realize the promise that swept him into office.
Bruce Schneier is a security technologist who teaches at the Harvard Kennedy School.
Nathan E. Sanders is a data scientist for the Harvard Business Review. Their book, Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform our Politics, Government, and Citizenship, was published by MIT Press in October.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















