内容来源：https://techcrunch.com/2026/11/07/after-the-midterms-things-are-looking-rocky-for-elon-musk-and-data-centers/

内容总结：

民主党在中期选举中的历史性胜利，可能对科技行业产生深远影响。在数十项地方公投中，选民否决了数据中心相关提案。即便在没有直接就数据中心问题投票的地方，选民也选出了像得克萨斯州新当选州长吉娜·伊诺霍萨这样以限制数据中心为竞选承诺的政治人物。

在最新一期的TechCrunch“Equity”播客中，Kirsten Korosec、Sean O'Kane和主持人讨论了中期选举对科技行业的意义。Sean指出，埃隆·马斯克向共和党捐赠了五亿美元，却“似乎基本上什么也没得到”，而他的企业现在总部所在的州“发生了惊人转变，变得尽可能偏蓝”。Kirsten则表示，数据中心问题可能并非“蓝色浪潮”的主要成因，但它已日益成为一个“草根议题”，部分原因在于超大规模企业和公司推动项目获批的方式。她指出，“我们已经看到像OpenAI这样的公司突然表态，‘其实，我们可以改变我们的政策。’”

Sean进一步分析称，马斯克可能是数据中心领域最大的建设者之一，同时也是共和党最大的捐赠者，但他似乎一无所获。此外，全国范围内多项旨在为数据中心快速建设铺平道路的公投措施几乎全部被否决。科技界普遍认为，民主党掌权意味着数据中心将面临更多障碍，尤其是在得克萨斯州，新当选州长伊诺霍萨已公开将限制数据中心作为竞选承诺和施政重点。

Anthony Ha认为，数据中心公投并非无处不在，但这一议题呈现出跨党派特征，民主党似乎更有效地利用了这股民意。反AI、尤其是反数据中心的情绪已成为一股相当强大的政治力量，未来两年乃至更长时间内，科技公司尤其是超大规模企业和数据中心企业将面临更大困难。他还指出，企业可能担忧这一问题在2028年及以后是否会持续发酵。

Kirsten Korosec表示，数据中心问题并非吸引所有人投票的主要原因，但它确实日益成为草根议题，部分原因是超大规模企业在推动数据中心获批时行事隐秘，常常要求民选官员或任命官员签署保密协议，不公开项目规模信息，尤其是在西南部等水资源紧缺的环保敏感地区。她认为，共和党人、独立人士和民主党人都对此感到不满，但这并非唯一议题。她注意到，OpenAI等公司已开始调整政策，发布了所谓的“算力园区政策蓝图”，不再要求签署保密协议，将公开计划并减少秘密运作。这表明，当市场出现监管确定性或相关信号时，企业会做出回应；反之则不然。

Anthony Ha补充说，OpenAI将数据中心重新命名为“算力园区”，除了政策调整外，也是一种品牌重塑的尝试，因为“数据中心”已成为一个敏感词汇。Sean对此表示不屑，认为这不会改变任何事，只是浪费精力。Kirsten则调侃建议OpenAI创建一个可爱的“算力园区”虚拟形象来替代令人担忧的数据中心形象。Anthony还提到，华尔街对超大规模企业和AI公司的态度正在转变，投资者对斥巨资建设数据中心和算力的热情下降，这构成了不建设数据中心的财务激励。从监管角度看，建设数据中心将更加困难，华尔街也不会对此给予奖励，但企业若想达到预期规模，仍需要在某处建设数据中心。

中文翻译：

民主党在本周中期选举中的历史性胜利，也可能对科技行业产生巨大影响。在数十项地方公投中，选民否决了数据中心项目。即便没有直接就这一问题投票，他们也选出了像得克萨斯州新当选州长吉娜·伊诺霍萨这样以限制数据中心为竞选承诺的政治人物。在TechCrunch“Equity”播客最新一期节目中，柯尔斯滕·科罗塞克、肖恩·奥凯恩和我讨论了中期选举对科技行业意味着什么。肖恩率先指出，埃隆·马斯克“向共和党捐赠了五亿美元，似乎基本上什么也没得到”，而他的公司现在总部所在的那个州“竟然已经变得尽可能偏蓝了”。柯尔斯滕则表示，数据中心可能并不是“蓝色浪潮”的主要原因，但它们已经成为一个“日益草根化的议题，部分原因是超大规模云厂商和企业在推动项目获批时的做法”。而现在，“我们已经看到像OpenAI这样的公司突然表态，‘其实，我们可以改变我们的政策。’”以下是我们的对话节选，为篇幅和清晰度做了编辑。
肖恩·奥凯恩：首先，我们来谈谈这个事实：最大的数据中心建设者之一，同时也是共和党最大的金主。埃隆·马斯克捐了五亿美元——等到最终统计出来时可能还更多——似乎基本上什么也没得到，事实上他现在所有的企业都设在一个已经变得尽可能偏蓝的州，这在很长一段时间以来，甚至可能是有史以来第一次。我认为，这是笼罩在整场讨论之上的最大问题。不过，全国各地还有一堆公投提案，本来会为数据中心更快建设铺平道路。几乎所有这些提案都被否决了，或者被投票反对。[实际上，许多公投提案本来会对数据中心施加限制或暂停令，而几乎所有这些措施都通过了。]随着[民主党]掌权，至少科技界有一种共识：这意味着数据中心将面临很多障碍，尤其是在得克萨斯州这样的地方，那里有像当选州长[吉娜]·伊诺霍萨这样的人，她相当公开地表示这是竞选承诺，也是她击败格雷格·阿博特后上台想要重点推进的事项。我认为这是科技界可能有点过于关注的事情。我很好奇你们怎么看。
安东尼·哈：我不一定认为他们过于关注这件事，但我理解为什么它会让人觉得有点不成比例——数据中心公投提案，确实有不少，但并不是到处都在投票。在不同的选战中，动态可能略有不同，但有一种暗流和感觉是，这似乎是一个遍及全国的问题，在很多方面是两党共同的，但民主党似乎在利用这股能量方面更有效。当然，民主党周二表现如此之好有各种原因，但反AI、尤其是反数据中心的情绪似乎确实是其中很大一部分。这似乎是一股相当强大的政治力量。未来两年，甚至可能更久，科技公司总体上会更难，超大规模云厂商和数据中心企业尤其如此。我还想象他们肯定有点担心：这个问题会不会继续存在，不只是跟今年当选的人有关，还可能在2028年及以后继续发酵？
柯尔斯滕·科罗塞克：绝对如此。我不认为数据中心问题是把所有人带到投票站并导致所谓“蓝色浪潮”的原因。不过，我要说的是，数据中心已经成为一个日益草根化的议题，部分原因是超大规模云厂商和企业在推动这些数据中心获批时的做法——非常神秘，往往要求民选官员或任命官员签署保密协议，不分享项目在环境敏感地区的规模信息，包括在西南部，那里水资源短缺问题非常严重。所以我认为很多人——共和党人、独立人士和民主党人——都认为这是不对的。他们因此受到推动，但我不认为这是唯一议题。现在，有趣的是，之前有很多人摆手说[AI公司]不可能在其他任何情况下运营。而我们已经看到像OpenAI这样的公司突然改口说：“其实，我们可以改变我们的政策。”他们刚刚发布了所谓的“算力园区政策蓝图”。你猜怎么着？他们不再要求签保密协议了。他们要分享计划， supposedly在更少保密的情况下运营。我认为这表明，当你提供监管确定性，或者至少发出朝那个方向走的信号时，企业会作出回应。如果你不这样做，他们不一定就会做我们希望他们做的事。
安东尼：我想强调的一点是，他们把它称为[他们的]“算力园区政策”。这样做的一部分，除了提出这些政策变化之外，也是试图为数据中心重新 branding，因为它已经变成了一个如此有毒的词。所以它们不再是数据中心，而是算力园区。我很好奇，你们俩觉得这能行得通吗？
肖恩：我是说，这太荒唐了。拜托。这不会改变任何事。只会让他们多费功夫。对于一家喜欢说自己不再专注于支线任务的公司来说，OpenAI还是喜欢到处乱跑。这只是最新的一种情况，就像：你们到底为什么要在这上面花时间？这似乎真的不会起什么作用。
柯尔斯滕：我有一个给OpenAI的好主意。既然要让有威胁的东西显得可爱，他们百分之百应该创建一个算力园区吉祥物，一个可爱的东西，然后就用它来展示，而不是展示一个耗电、耗能、耗水的数据中心。
安东尼：如果这些只是可爱的算力园区，那他们就应该把自己的办公室建在那里，或者就在旁边办公，看看效果如何。我还在想的另一件事是，这次选举在多大程度上可能是一记组合拳的第二部分。[我们刚刚看到]华尔街对很多超大规模云厂商和AI公司的反应发生了巨大转变，有一种感觉是[投资者]并不兴奋于他们应该花这么多钱建新数据中心、花这么多钱在算力上。所以，不建这些数据中心是有经济激励的。我非常好奇这会如何发展。[从监管角度看，]建数据中心可能会更难。华尔街可能不会因为建数据中心而奖励你。但与此同时，要达到他们想要的规模，他们可能还是得在某个地方建数据中心。

英文来源：

Democrats’ historic victory in this week’s midterm elections could also have a dramatic effect on the tech industry.
In dozens of local ballot measures, voters rejected data centers. And even when they weren’t voting on the issue directly, they were electing politicians — like Texas’ new governor-elect Gina Hinojosa — who campaigned on the promise of restricting data centers.
On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I discussed what the midterms mean for the tech industry. Sean kicked it off by noting that Elon Musk “seems to have basically nothing out of donating half a billion dollars” to Republicans, while his companies are now headquartered “in a state that has, remarkably, turned about as blue as it could possibly turn.”
And Kirsten said that while data centers probably weren’t the main cause of the “blue wave,” they’ve become an “an increasingly grassroots issue, in part because of how hyperscalers and companies have gone about” getting their projects approved. And now, “we’re already seeing companies like OpenAI all of a sudden go, ‘Actually, we can change our policies.’”
Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.
Sean O’Kane: First off, let’s talk about the fact that one of the biggest data center builders was also the largest donor to the Republican Party. Elon Musk seems to have gotten basically nothing out of donating half a billion dollars — maybe even more, by the time we see the final count — and in fact is now sitting there with all of his businesses in a state that has, remarkably, turned about as blue as it could possibly turn for the first time in a very long time, if ever.
That, I think, is the biggest thing hanging above a lot of this discussion. But, there were also a bunch of ballot measures up around the country that would have paved the way for data centers to get built faster. Almost all of them got shot down, or voted against. [Actually, many of the ballot measures would have imposed restrictions or moratoriums on data centers, and almost all of those measures passed.]
With [Democrats] in power, there is a consensus view, at least in the tech world, that this is going to mean we have a lot of roadblocks ahead for data centers, especially in places like Texas, where [you have] folks like the governor-elect [Gina] Hinojosa, who has spoken pretty openly about this being a campaign promise and something that she wants to focus on once she takes power, now that she’s beaten Greg Abbott.
It’s the thing that I think the tech world is maybe a little too focused on. I’m curious what you guys think about that.
Anthony Ha: I don’t necessarily think that they’re too focused on it, but I understand why it would feel a little bit disproportionate — the data center ballot measures, certainly there were a number of them, but it wasn’t something that was on the ballot everywhere.
And in different races, the dynamic might have been a bit different, but there was this undercurrent and sense that it seems to be an issue that reaches across the country, that is bipartisan in a lot of ways, but that the Democrats seem to have been more effective at harnessing that energy. And of course, there’s all kinds of reasons why the Democrats did so well on Tuesday, but it does seem like anti-AI and especially anti-data center sentiment was a big part of it. That seems like a pretty potent political force.
The next two years, [and] potentially beyond that, are going to be more difficult for tech companies in general, and hyperscalers, data center companies in particular. I also imagine that they have to be a little bit worried about: Is this going to continue to be an issue, not just with the people who got elected this year, but potentially in 2028 and beyond?
Kirsten Korosec: Absolutely. I don’t think that the data center issue is what brought everyone to the polls and led to the quote-unquote “blue wave.” However, I will say that data centers have been an increasingly grassroots issue, in part because of how hyperscalers and companies have gone about getting these data centers [approved] — very secretive, oftentimes requiring NDAs of a elected officials or appointed officials, not sharing information about the scale of a project in very environmentally sensitive areas, including in the Southwest, where there’s very much a water scarcity issue.
So I think that a lot of folks — Republicans, independents, and Democrats — all saw this as wrong. They were motivated by it, but I don’t think it was a singular issue.
Now, here’s the interesting thing. There was a lot of waving of hands about how [AI companies] can’t possibly operate under any other circumstances. And we’re already seeing companies like OpenAI all of a sudden go, “Actually, we can change our policies.” They just released what they call a compute campus policy blueprint. And guess what? They’re not going to require NDAs anymore. They’re going to share their plans and supposedly operate in less secrecy.
I think what this shows is that when you put up either a regulatory certainty in the marketplace, or at least signals of going in that direction, then corporations will respond. If you don’t do that, they will not necessarily do the thing that we hope that they will do.
Anthony: One thing I want to emphasize is that they’re calling it this [their] “compute campus policy.” And part of what that’s doing, beyond laying out these policy changes, is also an attempt to rebrand data centers, because they have become such a toxic phrase. So they’re not data centers anymore, they are compute campuses, and I’m curious, whether either of you think that’ll take.
Sean: I mean, this is ridiculous. Come on. It’s not going to change anything. It’s going to cause them more effort. For a company that likes to say that it’s no longer focused on side quests, OpenAI still loves to go in different directions a lot. And this is just the latest kind of thing where it’s just like: Why are you spending time on this at all? It doesn’t really seem like it’s going to move the needle.
Kirsten: I have a great idea for OpenAI. Because in the spirit of making threatening things seem cute, they should 100% create a compute campuses avatar, [a] cutesy thing, and then just present that instead of a power-, energy-sucking, water-sucking data center.
Anthony: And if these are just lovely compute campuses, they should just build their own offices there or work next door, see how that works out for them.
Something else that I’m wondering about is, to what extent the election is maybe the second part of a one-two punch. [We’ve just seen] a big shift in how Wall Street is reacting to a lot of these hyperscalers and AI companies and this sense that [investors] are not excited about the idea that they should be spending all this money building new data centers, spending all this money on compute. And so there’s a financial incentive not to build all these data centers.
I’m very curious how that’s going to play out. [From a regulatory standpoint,] it’s probably going to be harder to build data centers. Wall Street is probably not going to reward you for building data centers. But at the same time, to get to the scale that they want to get to, they are probably going to need to build data centers somewhere.