There’s virtually no question that the Nov. 3 midterms are going to go badly for Republicans. The only unknown is how badly.
Aside from the MAGA base, everyone has polling PTSD. Leftists, liberals, centrists, and Never Trumpers do not trust what their eyes and ears are telling them: that the Trump coalition is damaged, weak, and wobbling. The midterms really might usher in the beginning of the end of MAGA.
Part of the public’s skepticism is that the upper echelons of the tech industry are doing their best to keep Republicans financially competitive. Tech oligarchs, as well as many AI and crypto super PACs, are spending big to elect candidates (especially conservatives) whom they believe will maintain a light-touch regulatory approach.
Tech oligarchs are aligning with Trump because of their own business interests, certainly, but they’ve been radicalized, too. Elon Musk is chief among them. He’s given more than $400 million to swing these midterms back to Republicans—an unseemly number with no precedent.
Still, the signals are impossible to ignore. Trump is unusually unpopular for a president at this stage of his term. Democratic campaign committees have far outraised their Republican counterparts, which points to an enthusiasm gap among rank-and-file contributors. Republicans, meanwhile, are dwarfing Democrats in super PAC funding. Campaign committees have capped donation limits, super PACs don’t. The most influential tech donors are trying to buy their preferred election results via those super PACs. This time, I don’t think they’re succeeding.
As a politics nerd who’s been studying early turnout reports, polling, and campaign donations, I decided to put together a list of 11 crucial races where the tech industry has played an outsized role in funding candidates (or informing their messaging). Why 11? Because I reject nice, round numbers. To put my money where my mouth is, I’ve issued predictions for each race.
Shoutout to two resources that I found especially useful: this CNBC article about AI political groups, and this database from Molly White’s Citation Needed.
Arizona’s 1st Congressional District
The candidates: Jay Feely (R), Amish Shah (D)
Big Tech’s influence on the race: At least $616,000 to support Feely via the American Mission super PAC, which gets behind “Republican candidates dedicated to advancing AI innovation.” In other words: AI regulation not good.
The stakes: This is a true swing district in a swing state. The outcome has a pretty decent shot at reflecting the broader electorate in other must-win House races. The candidates are not very remarkable. Shah is a moderate Democrat. Feely is MAGA-adjacent and has spent the last few months suggesting to voters that he isn’t a Trump loyalist.
Shah said constituents in the district flatly do not want any data centers to be built there. Feely has touted the economic benefits of data centers and avoided giving a firm stance on whether they should be constructed in Arizona’s first congressional district.
Hard Reset’s stone-cold lock: Shah wins because independents go for him in droves. “Former professional athlete” only takes you so far when you were a kicker. Huge L for data centers.
California’s 11th Congressional District
The candidates: Scott Wiener (D), Connie Chan (D)
Big Tech’s influence on the race: A Wiener super PAC recently received $3 million from Public First Action, an advocacy group that claims to be nonpartisan and in favor of AI regulations. Public First Action is deep-pocketed because of $40 million in donations from Anthropic, though Anthropic swears its donations are not supposed to be funneled to any one candidate. I have no evidence to the contrary, though I am skeptical of those nebulous guardrails. Chan derided the donation; Wiener had denied any involvement from Anthropic. Separately, the Wiener campaign is reportedly coordinating extremely closely with a different super PAC that favors his candidacy.
Given that this is San Francisco, there are also lots of “maxed out” donations ($3,500) from wealthy tech workers and executives. Here’s a filtered FEC link if you’d like to peruse. (Click the “raw” button on the far left if you want to see more recent donations that aren’t yet itemized by the FEC.)
The stakes: Nancy Pelosi’s legacy is at stake! She endorsed Chan, who appears to be the underdog going into Tuesday. Chan wants a federal moratorium on data centers and has hammered Wiener for not being a trustworthy source on the issue. Wiener has a legitimate history trying to regulate AI in the California State Legislature, though his bolder bill got squashed by Governor Gavin Newsom. My Hard Reset colleague JJ Lansing has a thorough write-up of how each candidate says they’ll legislate on AI.
Hard Reset’s stone-cold lock: Wiener wins, I think. My disclaimer is that I am not following Bay Area politics as closely as I did when I lived there. My sense from afar is that Wiener has consolidated the traditional Democratic base in San Francisco—especially its highest-earners. Mission Local’s analysis of the race noted that, despite Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement of Chan, strong supporters of Pelosi are behind Wiener, 54% to 46%. That’s pretty convincing evidence to me, though the same analysis raises strong points that Chan’s support among monolingual Chinese voters is likely being underrepresented in polling.
California’s Prop. 40
The ballot measure: A 5% tax on California residents with net worths over $1 billion.
Big Tech’s influence on the race: About as sizable as you can get. According to Politico, more than $100 million from Google cofounder Sergey Brin; more than $40 million from former Google CEO Eric Schmidt; more than $33 million from Stripe cofounder Patrick Collison; more than $17 million from Ripple cofounder Chris Larsen; more than $12 million from venture capitalist Vinod Khosla; more than $7 million from venture capitalist Michael Moritz; more than $3 million from DoorDash CEO Tony Xu. Every day, the anti-wealth tax super PAC Building a Better California is burning through millions of dollars.
The stakes: If Prop. 40 passes, and billionaires are eventually compelled to pay up (they will surely challenge the measure in court), then wealth tax discussions will extend well beyond California. A federal wealth tax will be a consistent position among Democratic Party candidates in the 2028 presidential primaries. Also: more healthcare funding in the state of California!
If Prop. 40 fails, there will be lots of finger-pointing. Billionaires will continue hoarding billions. We’ll learn who actually departed the state this year, and who faked it. A few of the Democratic candidates for president will push for a federal wealth tax, but it will sadly lose some salience.
Hard Reset’s stone-cold lock: Here’s what I wrote last weekend, which I feel even more confident about after reading recent polling.
The wealth tax ultimately will not be enacted. If Prop. 40 passes, it can still be undone by Prop. 41 and Prop. 42, which are basically poison-pill measures that billionaires snuck onto the ballot. In the event that either proposition accumulates more votes than Prop. 40, the wealth tax is invalidated. That gives California billionaires three different outs. I do not like those odds, especially coupled with a lack of enthusiasm for candidates at the top of the ticket. (Xavier Becerra is not going to be among the Democrats who outperform expectations.)
Florida’s 25th Congressional District
The candidates: Scott Singer (R), Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D)
Big Tech’s influence on the race: Moskowitz has benefited from at least $310,000 in support from Think Big, a super PAC that claims to back Democrats who are “advancing AI innovation.” Think Big is reportedly an affiliate of Leading the Future, the anti-AI regulation super PAC that OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman recently (publicly) distanced himself from.
Since the primaries, Singer has been bolstered by Defending Our Values, a super PAC that claims to support conservative candidates “who will stand up to the tech industry” and are “committed to AI policies that protect our children from online harm.” Defending Our Values, an affiliate of Public First Action (the group that gave to Wiener), has reportedly contributed more than $1.5 million to benefit Singer.
This is the most expensive House race in the country: it could eclipse $50 million in total spending by Nov. 3.
The stakes: Moskowitz is among a handful of legitimately conservative Democrats in the House. He is further to the right than many Republicans (including Singer) on how to regulate AI. He’s also arguably the most hawkish, pro-Israel Democrat in the House. And he was the only Democrat to join the DOGE caucus, which is now dead.
Republicans redrew this seat as part of their naked gerrymandering scheme. The fact that it’s still a tossup points to the GOP’s fragile standing.
Hard Reset’s stone-cold lock: Moskowitz wins. Hard to say anything definitive about a local-ish Florida race, but early returns strongly favor a Democratic Party overperformance in the state. Especially for a right-leaning incumbent.
If you’ll allow me one paragraph to go Big Brain mode: A Moskowitz victory is bad for Democrats. He is a thorn in the side of the Democratic caucus. “I go after my party all the time and fight within,” is how he sold his credentials to Fox News in August. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries just inexplicably appointed Moskowitz as the ranking member on the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee. That decision was panned by the left, and for good reason: Moskowitz is completely out of step with the Democratic base on Israel and the Iran War, which he initially cheerleaded.
This is not to say Singer would be any better on these issues—he certainly would not. But he isn’t a rubberstamp for the AI industry, and he likely wouldn’t be chairing powerful subcommittees. Democrats are going to win the House regardless—this is a race where it’d be to their benefit if Moskowitz went down.
Maine Senate
The candidates: Sen. Susan Collins (R), Troy Jackson (D)
Big Tech’s influence on the race: Musk’s super PAC has reportedly disbursed more than $170,000 to a group that produces mailers on behalf of Collins. The SpaceX PAC gave $50,000 to a Collins super PAC and $55,000 to another Collins PAC. In 2025, Palantir CEO Alex Karp donated $100,000 to the main Collins super PAC. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong also gave $12,000 to a Collins PAC. Dark-money groups whose donors will probably never be released have reportedly amassed more than $125 million to help Collins get over the finish line.
The stakes: Collins remaining in office for another six years significantly dents Democrats’ hopes of amassing a Senate majority that can actually pass legislation after 2028. Keep in mind: Democrats are always going to have right-leaning defectors lurking among their ranks. They can’t afford to navigate those lurkers and Collins, one of the only Republican Senators in a blue-ish seat. If Jackson loses, the left is going to eat a bunch of shit—both for elevating him, and for sticking with Graham Platner for too long.
Hard Reset’s stone-cold lock: Jackson wins, but it’s ugly and very close. Was always going to end this way with Susan Collins: she does not go down easily. Pine Tree Results, the top Collins super PAC, will release a post-election FEC filing showing that the tech industry panicked and doled out many millions of dollars to try and save Collins during the last few weeks of October.
Michigan Senate
The candidates: Rep. Mike Rogers (R), Abdul El-Sayed (D)
Big Tech’s influence on the race: WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum contributed $265,800 to a super PAC that supports Rogers. Michelle Valentine, a tech investor and the wife of Anthropic co-founder Tom Brown, gave $25,000 to a different Rogers PAC. (Brown himself gave $3,500, I previously reported.) And Rogers stands to potentially benefit from his own tech investments, especially if there’s a data center boon, The Lever reports.
The stakes: Oh God, where to even begin? Control of the Senate, for one; there are almost zero paths for the Democrats if El-Sayed falters. El-Sayed is a litmus test for other swing-states. Are these states willing to elect a Muslim to statewide office? Are they willing to elect a left-leaning candidate? Not just that: a left-leaning candidate who’s willing to call the genocide in Gaza a genocide?
Of course, those are the stakes stripped of vital context. El-Sayed has been subjected to Islamophobic attacks and smear attempts by Rogers and Rep. Haley Stevens, the latter of whom was El-Sayed’s primary opponent. Chances are, even if El-Sayed wins, he’ll perform slightly worse than Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson. Centrist Democrats will frame this as a sign that left-leaning candidates are weaker than moderates.
On the tech front: El-Sayed has proposed an ambitious regulatory framework for the AI industry; Rogers has not. Both candidates claim to favor a data center moratorium in Michigan.
Hard Reset’s stone-cold lock: El-Sayed wins by a semi-comfortable margin—more than what is being represented in recent polls. In the coming weeks and months, Beltway pundits and reporters will slowly wrap their heads around how El-Sayed ended up securing an impressive proportion of independent and right-leaning voters.
Montana’s 1st Congressional District
The candidates: Aaron Flint (R), Sam Forstag (D)
Big Tech’s influence on the race: The American Mission super PAC—which also supports Feely’s congressional run—has reportedly contributed at least $590,000 to Flint.
The stakes: Forstag’s victory would be an affirmation of his campaign strategy, which includes running ads that refer to Flint as “AI Aaron.” Forstag has called for much more AI regulation—and called out AI super PAC donations to Flint.
Hard Reset’s stone-cold lock: Forstag wins this one relatively comfortably. I am bullish on the 32-year-old firefighter who has strong labor credentials and a solid populist agenda. Flint’s soft-touch approach to data centers (he’s generally in favor of them) and his saber-rattling about AI (we have to beat China, blah blah blah) will come back to bite him.
Ohio Senate
The candidates: Sen. Jon Husted (R), Sherrod Brown (D)
Big Tech’s influence on the race: Fairshake, a crypto super PAC with significant Big Tech backing, has reportedly spent at least $55 million to keep Brown—a vocal crypto critic—from returning to the Senate. The Winklevoss twins, literal crypto bros, have thrown in for Husted. So have Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz.
The stakes: Trump’s popularity in Ohio, plus tens of millions of dollars from Fairshake, were enough to boot Brown in 2024. Were he to come back and win two years later, it would be a pretty stunning repudiation of MAGA and the crypto industry. Brown has focused many of his attacks on Husted’s wishy-washy data center positions, but it’s not clear yet whether that tactic is swaying voters.
Hard Reset’s stone-cold lock: Husted’s allegedly perfect butt will not save him. Brown wins by less than Acton—I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s very close—but he gets the job done, partially because a not-insignificant portion of the electorate seems to believe he’s the incumbent.
Ohio Governor
The candidates: Vivek Ramaswamy (R), Amy Acton (D)
Big Tech’s influence on the race: Musk emptied one of his pockets and sprinkled $5 million to V-PAC, the Ramaswamy super PAC. TikTok investor Jeff Yass gave $10 million to V-PAC. So did Ratmir Timashev, a tech entrepreneur who aspires to make Columbus, Ohio, “the next Silicon Valley.” I wrote more about Timashev last week.
The stakes: Acton recently said that “decency is on the ballot,” which is the sort of “West Wing”-style sentiment that hasn’t served Democrats well during the MAGA era. But this is a rare exception where she is absolutely correct. Ramaswamy was already one of the worst GOP candidates of this election cycle, even before his last-minute campaign ad that featured Acton’s estranged and unwell mother. Now he’s in the running for the worst GOP candidate of this election cycle. If he somehow wins anyway, it means Ohio is out of reach for Democrats for the foreseeable future.
Hard Reset’s stone-cold lock: Acton wins comfortably, Ramaswamy tries to call her to concede, she doesn’t answer the phone. Good for her. Ramaswamy’s political career is over. His disgusting closing message—endorsed by Ohio’s own JD Vance—causes permanent damage to Vance’s standing in his home state.
South Carolina Senate
The candidates: Sen. Darline Graham Nordone (R), Annie Andrews (D)
Big Tech’s influence on the race: Building the Future, a new, pro-data centers super PAC that has yet to disclose its donors, is reportedly spending at least $1.5 million on ads for Graham Nordone. She’s gotten individual donations from Andreessen and Horowitz. Another PAC of hers has received donations from venture capitalist Asha Jadeja Motwani and the Winklevoss twins.
The stakes: If Andrews wins, it means MAGA is functionally over, even with two years left in Trump’s term. It would also be an inspiring repudiation of the late Lindsey Graham’s warmongering legacy. And a repudiation of nepotism! And data centers! Andrews has referred to Graham Nordone as “Data Center Darline.”
Hard Reset’s stone-cold lock: Gotta take the hopium mask off here. Graham Nordone wins. She is obviously unqualified, and this result is an embarrassment. But two important reality checks: Trump carried the state by nearly 18 points in 2024. Even a “blue tsunami” scenario nationwide, coupled with a notable turnout increase among Black South Carolinians, coupled with Graham Nordone not knowing her left from her right—let alone where Taiwan is on a map—might not be enough to overcome that sort of deficit. This is the sort of race where tech’s late influx of cash for Graham Nordone can make the difference.
Also, I’m sorry, but I watched Andrews debate with Graham Nordone and came away deeply unimpressed. Aside from a few funny barbs directed at Graham Nordone (who’s not exactly a difficult target to ridicule), Andrews’ delivery was abysmal. She’s running scared—she sounds like all of the other losing Democrats from the last decade whose platforms were “I am basically a Republican, I swear.” At one point during the debate, she said, “To set the record straight: I don’t support Medicare for All.”
I don’t expect a South Carolina Senate candidate to run as a Bernie Sanders disciple, but you have to have some convictions and some sort of affirmative message. Not the case in this race. After Trump wrote transphobic slurs about Andrews on Truth Social, she responded by cutting an ad where she clarified that she doesn’t “support biological men playing women’s sports” and that she doesn’t support (and has never performed) gender-affirming surgeries for minors. Weak and undignified. If Andrews pulls out an upset, it’ll be a hilarious defeat for Trump and the Graham Dynasty. Just be prepared for Andrews to become one of the worst Senators in the Democratic caucus.
Texas Senate
The candidates: Ken Paxton (R), James Talarico (D)
Big Tech’s influence on the race: Well, Elon Musk might rig this one by himself. Out of the more than $400 million he’s spent on these midterms, roughly $190 million has gone towards rescuing Paxton, according to The Texas Tribune.
Talarico-associated super PACs have received huge donations that would normally be considered impressive, or concerning, depending on your perspective on these things. LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman gave $5 million to the main Talarico super PAC; Netflix CEO Reed Hastings gave $1 million.
The stakes: If Paxton wins, the GOP will breathe a sigh of relief. Democrats’ odds of taking the Senate drop precipitously. Musk and other tech oligarchs prove that they can rig an election with almost half-a-billion dollars in donations—an ominous development heading into 2028. There is no telling how Paxton will repay Musk.
On the flip side, if Talarico beats Paxton, you can assume with near-certainty that the Democrats took the Senate. There’s a less-discussed angle here: Paxton is a uniquely bad candidate, yes, but a Blue Texas (Blexis) almost certainly unlocks an entirely new electoral map for Democrats. Even the threat of Texas being competitive in 2028 means Republicans have to expend more money and resources to ensure they lock up the state’s 40 electoral votes. That helps Democrats elsewhere.
Also: a Talarico victory means Musk wasted a mind-numbing amount of money. I doubt that outcome would compel Musk to back away from conservative candidates, but it might cause him to revisit his stupid idea to start another political party. (Which I support.)
Hard Reset’s stone-cold lock: Blexis at last. Talarico eclipses 51%, Paxton has one of the worst underperformances of this entire election cycle. President Trump lashes out at Paxton for a week straight. A handful of especially annoying pundits at CNN and Axios start asking if Talarico is a 2028 presidential candidate. He is not; if you’re the Democrats, you take this unfathomable W and keep a stranglehold on a Texas Senate seat for six years.