The U.S. Census may be the most consequential data set in America. It determines how political representation is apportioned in Washington and how trillions of dollars in federal funding are allocated. But the data contained in the Census shouldn't always be taken at face value. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with historian Dan Bouk about his book, "Democracy's Data: The Hidden Stories in the U.S. Census and how to Read Them."
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

Jasmine Clark first ran for office and flipped a Republican-held state legislative district in 2018.
Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post/Getty Images
Jasmine Clark Is Poised To Be the First Black Woman Ph.D. Scientist in Congress
Jun 08, 2026
LILBURN, GEORGIA — When state Rep. Jasmine Clark launched her campaign for Congress on a mission to enact generational change, she didn’t realize she could also make history.
Now, she’s poised to become the first Black woman Ph.D. scientist to serve in Congress. If she wins, she’ll be representing Georgia’s 13th Congressional District.
“Whenever you’re the first, it’s almost like you become representative of what that will be, and so I do not take that lightly,” Clark told The 19th in a Monday interview at a coffee shop overlooking a lake in Lilburn, where she lives.
“I feel like what I have, what I’ve accomplished, the things that I’ve been able to do, I do feel as if I’m ready for this moment,” she added.
“I feel like what I have, what I’ve accomplished, the things that I’ve been able to do, I do feel as if I’m ready for this moment,” she added.
Clark, a mother of two who earned her doctorate in microbiology from Emory University and teaches at the university’s nursing school, first ran for office and flipped a Republican-held state legislative district in 2018. Last year, she announced she was challenging the former Rep. David Scott in the safely Democratic and majority non-White seat located in the racially diverse suburbs east of Atlanta.
Scott, the district’s longtime representative, had filed to run for another term despite concerns from other Democrats about his health and fitness for office before he died in April at the age of 80.
Clark, who had already exceeded Scott and her other opponents in fundraising, is now projected to win the Democratic primary for the seat, which includes several counties east of Atlanta, according to Decision Desk HQ. Scott’s name remained on the ballot, but his votes were disqualified.

(Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post/Getty Images)
Clark is one of several younger Democrats who lined up to challenge older incumbents in safe blue seats. They are part of a growing conversation in the Democratic Party about age, one that increased in urgency after President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential race amid widespread concerns about his age and mental acuity, and after several House Democrats, including Scott, died in office.
“I think the call for generational change is basically a call for lack of stagnation and making sure that we’re moving forward as a country,” Clark said. “We have to be intentional about making sure that the institutional knowledge doesn’t leave with us.”
Her race has drawn both national attention and outside spending from groups like 314 Action Fund, which supports candidates with backgrounds in science. The largest outside investment has come from Protect Progress, a political action committee that is part of the pro-cryptocurrency Fairshake network and spent at least $4.2 million on ads and mailers supporting her campaign.
In Congress, Clark said she wants to tackle issues like healthcare access and maternal mortality, which affects Black women at the highest rates.
President Donald Trump’s second administration has slashed public health funds programs and medical research, especially in areas disproportionately affecting women, people of color and LGBTQ+ people. The cuts hit the Atlanta area, a hub for scientific research and the home of the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention, particularly hard.
“Looking at our public health system, it’s an absolute mess in a way I couldn’t have even imagined it could get.” Clark said. “Having [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] as the head of Health and Human Services has been an absolute disaster for our country.”
Defunding that research, Clark argued, is cutting a “lifeline” for communities like hers. She highlighted the need for more research into diseases like prostate cancer and triple-negative breast cancer, which affect Black patients at higher rates and in more aggressive forms.
“There are people in this district that will get the scariest diagnosis they will ever get in their life,” she said. “And they’re going to want to know what is out there that can prolong my life or save my life, and that stuff comes from research.”
Clark said that she’ll bring her expertise as a scientist working directly in academic research settings and with federal grants to Congress.
“It’s just a perspective that’s not in the room right now,” she said. “And I’m not saying that people aren’t fighting for these things, but they’re not fighting for them from the perspective I’m fighting for them — having a Ph.D. in microbiology, but also just having that science lens.”
Jasmine Clark Is Poised To Be the First Black Woman Ph.D. Scientist in Congress was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

1 U.S.A dollar banknotes
Photo by Alexander Grey on Unsplash
Capitalism Without Competition Is Oligarchy
Jun 07, 2026
For decades, Americans were told that globalization and free markets would deliver broadly shared prosperity. Instead, many saw stagnant wages, hollowed-out communities, and a growing concentration of wealth and power. The backlash was inevitable. But the real failure was not capitalism itself. It was the corruption of competition and the establishment’s generations-long indifference to the working class it left behind. That disregard didn’t just crater trust in institutions; it fueled populist backlash across the political spectrum, with anti-establishment anger now reshaping American politics.
Two truths define the American economic dilemma. First: competitive capitalism remains history’s most powerful engine for wealth creation, driving greater aggregate prosperity over the past two centuries than perhaps any other economic system. But averages are dangerous fictions; a man can easily drown in a lake that is, on average, two feet deep.
Second: the laissez-faire ideology that achieved near-religious status in recent decades has mutated into something closer to crony capitalism than genuine market competition.
Free markets do not emerge naturally; they are enforced political constructs. If markets work, it is because rules make them work. In American political rhetoric, faith in markets was often distorted into the fiction that the government’s best role was total noninterference. But Adam Smith’s real insight was not that markets should be left alone, but that competition disciplines self-interest into socially productive outcomes. Properly structured, the system aligns private ambition with public benefit: entrepreneurs profit by creating products and services consumers prefer over competing alternatives. It is the dynamic of competition that results in consumer surplus.
A fundamental principle in Smith’s model is that entrepreneurs must play fairly under a set of transparent, agreed-upon rules. Ironically, our crony capitalism model depends on the precise opposite of what Smith had in mind: unfairly advantaged producers raising structural obstacles to quash the very competition that benefits consumers. America’s most powerful corporations no longer win by competing. They win by rewriting the rules of competition. This is what drives today’s crisis of democratic legitimacy.
Markets fail in predictable ways. That is why government intervention is not a betrayal of capitalism, but often a prerequisite for making it work. The most common market failures are:
- Information asymmetry. Markets break when participants operate with radically unequal information. That is why institutions like the FDA, FTC, and SEC exist: to reduce deception, protect consumers, and preserve trust.
- Externalities. Firms maximize profits by widening the gap between revenues and costs. But when some costs—such as carbon emissions—are shifted onto society, markets stop pricing reality. This is not just a moral failure—it is an economic distortion. If firms were required to account for external costs, capitalism’s innovation engine would race to solve the problem. In such a system, the winning firm would be the one that delivers value with the lowest real social cost. Properly designed regulation could align capitalist incentives with climate solutions.
- Underinvestment in public goods. Some goods are chronically underprovided by markets because their benefits are shared too broadly to be captured privately. Infrastructure, clean air and water, parks, national security, emergency services, and public education all fall into this category. Few public investments have delivered returns as consistently as education, which produces more productive citizens and reduces long-term social costs.
A healthy capitalist system should also serve the public good. But this balance collapses when dominant firms evade the costs they impose on society while simultaneously shaping the political rules meant to constrain them. At that point, the interests of economic elites diverge from those of the public—even if GDP keeps rising. Left unchecked, that divergence only widens. If capitalism becomes merely a mechanism for incumbents to privatize gains while socializing costs, collapse is not a bug. It is the logical endpoint. After all, what good is bragging about a rising GDP while so many of our citizens are drowning?
Seth David Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing Our Nation,” winner of last year’s International Book Award for Best General Nonfiction. He is a frequent contributor as a political analyst and speaker within the business community and on college campuses both in the U.S. and abroad.
Keep ReadingShow less
Cathy Alderman: Housing Is Healthcare
Jun 07, 2026
The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) is working to address the lack of long-term affordable and supportive housing, which they identify as the only lasting solution to homelessness. Cathy Alderman, the organization’s Chief Communications and Public Policy Officer, emphasizes that the primary challenge is the "high cost not just of housing, but the cost of living" in Colorado, which creates a significant barrier for people trying to access stable housing or find rentals they can afford.
To address these challenges, the Coalition operates under the fundamental belief that "housing is healthcare". "We want to provide access to affordable housing and affordable health care so that people can be successful in the other areas of their life," Alderman said. As both a housing developer and a federally qualified health center, CCH manages approximately 2,000 units across 23 residential properties while providing integrated health services through clinics and street medicine teams.
The Fulcrum spoke with Alderman on a recent episode of The Fulcrum Democracy Forum.
- YouTube youtu.be
Alderman highlights that a major hurdle in solving homelessness is how it is often discussed in the absence of housing policy. "We can help people manage substance use disorders and mental health issues when they're stably housed far better than we can if they're out on the streets," Alderman explained, noting that providing housing first allows for the addressing of other foundational issues.
- YouTube youtu.be
We first met Alderman during the filming of The Fulcrum's award-winning series The 50: Voices of a Nation, which explores how Americans across the country engage with democracy at the local level. In the Colorado episode, we learned that a significant portion of this challenge involves the "doubled up" population—individuals who couch-surf or live with multiple families in small spaces—who are often excluded from official federal counts. "If you're not getting counted, then you're not getting an accurate picture of what homelessness looks like in your community, which means you're not going to be able to come up with the right resources and interventions," Alderman warned.
To prove the efficacy of their approach, CCH participated in the Denver Social Impact Bond program from 2014 to 2021. This pilot targeted individuals with frequent criminal justice interactions—often for minor infractions like being in a park after curfew—and achieved a first-year housing stability rate of approximately 86%. The data showed that providing housing and supportive services cost half as much as leaving an individual to cycle through emergency systems.
The findings also helped combat the stigma that homelessness is a choice. Of the first 100 people offered housing during the pilot, only one declined. "Ninety-nine percent of people experiencing homelessness would like to be housed if those resources were made available to them," Alderman stated.
Today, the Coalition uses this data to advocate for better use of taxpayer resources, extending its model to partnerships that reduce emergency care costs for Medicaid and Medicare. "We no longer have to say, 'I think housing might be more expensive than leaving somebody in shelter,'" Alderman noted. "Now we have the data to prove it".
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less

Smartphone with ai text in jeans pocket
Photo by Immo Wegmann on Unsplash
My Generation Can Spot the Deepfake. That’s Not Enough.
Jun 07, 2026
Thomas Massie, a seven-term Republican congressman from Kentucky, lost his primary on May 19. The race cost $32.6 million, making it the most expensive congressional primary in U.S. history. Among the weapons deployed against him: an AI-generated video showing him checking into a hotel room with Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, with their hands clasped. The narrator called it "worse than adultery." A disclaimer at the bottom of the screen, in small text, read: "This satirical ad was created with artificial intelligence."
I watched the ad. It looks ridiculous. The movements are slightly too smooth, the lighting is off, and the scenario is so cartoonish that I genuinely could not tell at first whether it was meant to be taken seriously. But I'm 17, and I've spent the last four years watching AI-generated content get better in real time. I know what the seams look like. Massie, in his post-loss interview on Meet the Press, was blunt about who the ad actually reached: "It was actually very effective on the boomers."
He mentioned something else that stuck with me. His daughter, who lives outside his district, overheard someone in the voting booth next to her trying to find his opponent's name on the ballot. The voter didn't even realize Massie wasn't their congressman.
One voter was fooled by AI into believing something that never happened. Another didn't know who their own representative was. Different failures. Same election.
This is not a future problem. NBC News has tracked at least 15 campaign ads featuring AI-generated content since November 2025. They cross party lines. In Massachusetts, Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Shortsleeve's campaign posted a radio ad that sounded exactly like Democratic Governor Maura Healey listing her own policy failures. It was entirely AI-generated. Her voice was cloned. The things she appeared to be saying, she never said. The campaign's defense was that the caption described it as what her ads would sound like "if she was honest," as though the joke somehow canceled out the deception. No explicit AI disclaimer appeared in the ad itself. In New York, Andrew Cuomo's campaign ran AI-generated attack ads against his mayoral opponent, one of which was pulled and blamed on a "junior staffer" after being widely condemned as racist. In Massie's own race, both sides ran deepfakes. The pro-Massie PAC produced its own AI video of Massie's opponent fleeing Donald Trump on a fictional battlefield. Kentucky passed a synthetic-media election law in 2025. The MAGA KY spot cited a satire exception. The pro-Massie ad didn't bother with a disclaimer at all. Roughly 30 states now have some version of an AI disclosure law. None of them prevented any of these ads from running.
The production costs have collapsed. David Martin of the advertising firm Adwave told the Washington Times that what used to require $10,000 to $15,000 and a full production team can now be done for about $50, overnight.
Most of the conversation about this focuses on regulation and labeling. I think that misses the deeper problem. A deepfake doesn't need to be technically undetectable to work. It just needs to reach someone who has no baseline for questioning it.
Most Americans can't name their own House member. A Haven Insights poll put the number at 37%. Think about what that means for a deepfake ad. If you've never heard of the person being depicted, you have no reference point. The fake version and the real version carry the same weight, because you never knew the real version to begin with. Six states have completed mid-decade redistricting since 2025, which resets whatever name recognition existed. New lines, new representatives, new confusion. A synthetic video drops into that vacuum, and there's nothing to push back against it.
For many older voters, the problem isn't even falling for a specific trick. It's that the category doesn't exist for them. Nearly 40% of adults aged 65 and older have never heard of the term "deepfake," according to a 2025 iProov survey. These are also the voters who show up the most reliably and get the bulk of their political information from broadcast television. The FCC does not currently require any disclosure when an AI-generated ad airs on TV.
I'm a high school senior at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, where I've taken two semesters of AI coursework. But the reason I can usually spot a synthetic video has almost nothing to do with what I learned in class. It's because I've been immersed in this stuff since middle school. My friends and I constantly share AI-generated memes. We've all seen enough face swaps, voice clones, and generated images to develop a kind of instinct for when something is off. It's like how you can tell a counterfeit bill feels wrong before you even think to check the watermark.
I should be careful about how far I push that, though. The same iProov study found that only 0.1% of people across all age groups correctly identified every deepfake they were shown. Young adults were actually the most overconfident about their detection skills. So my generation is not deepfake-proof. We can't reliably tell real from fake any better than anyone else in a controlled test. What's different is that we assume political content might be synthetic in the first place. We carry that suspicion by default, and older voters mostly don't. That default suspicion is probably more protective than any detection skill.
There are millions of Americans who have voted in every election for decades and have never heard the word "deepfake." I learned what one was in eighth grade.
I keep coming back to the Cuomo mayoral race and the Massie primary because they seem to show this playing out in opposite directions, though I'm not sure the comparison is as clean as I'd like. In New York, younger voters identified Cuomo's AI ads immediately and mocked them as "boomer slop." The synthetic content became a liability for his campaign. CIRCLE at Tufts found 75% of NYC youth voted for Mamdani versus 19% for Cuomo, though Cuomo was already unpopular with young voters for a dozen reasons that had nothing to do with AI. In Kentucky, the electorate in Massie's district skews well over 60, and Massie himself predicted what would happen: "They're hoping the older generation won't realize it's an AI-generated lie." Two races don't prove a pattern. But the underlying logic is hard to dismiss: deepfakes land harder when the audience has no familiarity with the form.
The generation that has that familiarity votes so little. In the 2022 midterms, 27.6% of 18-to-24-year-olds turned out, compared to about 68% of voters aged 65 to 74. There are real structural reasons for this gap. Young people move more often, which creates registration friction. They have less flexible schedules. They don't have the decades of built-up civic habit or the direct financial stake in programs like Social Security that keeps older voters engaged.
Massie probably didn't lose because of a deepfake. Trump's endorsement and tens of millions in outside spending likely mattered more. Whether the AI video moved enough people to change the result is honestly unknowable.
But it didn't need to determine the outcome. It just needed to work on the margin, in a primary where the electorate skewed toward people who had never encountered the form and were the most likely to actually cast a ballot. The next synthetic ad targeting a congressional district will cost $50 to produce. The voters most likely to see it on broadcast TV will have no frame of reference to question it.
Recognizing synthetic media is becoming as basic a civic skill as reading a ballot. Right now, the people who have that skill are mostly sitting out the elections where it matters most.
Maneesh Vaddi is a 17-year-old rising senior at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. His research on gerrymandering and voter turnout has been published in the GMU Journal of Student-Scientist Research. He delivered a pledge at the United Nations ECOSOC Chamber for the Transforming Global Education Summit and spoke at the Right Here, Right Now Global Youth Climate Summit, hosted by Oxford Saïd Business School, the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment, and UN Human Rights.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















