Ask Americans how they feel about AI and most say they have concerns. Communities have mounted resistance to data center projects, stalling them across the US. On social media, anger at AI companies and executives is unrestrained — sometimes to the point of condoning violence.

But look at the issues that most campaigns are focused on, and AI is far less prevalent, experts say.

More than 60 percent of both Republicans and Democrats polled by Ipsos earlier this year agree that the government should regulate AI for economic stability and public safety, and that the technology’s development should slow down. Still, “when you just ask folks, ‘what’s on your mind?’ AI and data centers aren’t rising to the top of the list — at least not yet,” says lead pollster for Ipsos Public Affairs Alec Tyson.

For now, broad topics like the economy and immigration remain priorities for many voters. “There’s a certain amount of oxygen for the top issues that Americans have on their mind, and we are living in a very active moment,” Tyson says. “The amount of available space or potential for another issue to break through, it has to be a pretty acute or powerful concern. And we’re just not seeing that at the national level with AI yet.”

There’s also a lack of clear partisan lines. Data Center Watch, a group that tracks data center projects and their opposition, found 55 percent of politicians who publicly opposed large projects were Republicans and 45 percent were Democrats. There’s also bipartisan concern over AI chatbot companions’ impact on kids. While Republican politicians have led the push to override state AI laws, there’s still disagreement within both parties

Even so, with months left until the election, debates — and outright fights — over AI are heating up. Tech executives warn that their companies will upend people’s lives — Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has warned AI could eliminate half of entry-level white collar jobs, and Palantir CEO Alex Karp has said that Democratic voters could see a hit to their economic power while “working-class, often male voters” benefit. Activists have pushed back. Most efforts are peaceful, including protests and messages to lawmakers. But some opposition has turned violent. Three suspects allegedly attacked Sam Altman’s home in two separate attacks over a matter of days, and some responses on social media have suggested the attacks were justified. Similar to the gleeful response from many in the public after the killing of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO, the violence has highlighted a simmering frustration among Americans.

Meanwhile, well-funded interest groups are already spending millions on lobbying. “A lot of political science has well-documented that everyday Americans in some ways follow the rhetoric or position of the leaders they align with,” Tyson says. Groups like Brad Carson’s Americans for Responsible Innovation are focused on educating policymakers about AI to prepare them for coming policy debates. Carson, a former Democratic congressman, opposes efforts to override state AI regulations and is also part of Public First Action, which is affiliated with super PACs (political action committees) dedicated to supporting candidates that will back public safeguards against AI. They’re an answer to Leading the Future, a super PAC funded primarily by OpenAI president Greg Brockman and tech investors Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz. Leading the Future has raised $140 million, according to Axios, while Public First Action has $50 million cash on hand — $20 million of which is from Anthropic.

Data centers have already become a flashpoint at the local level. Opposition to these projects has blocked or delayed $64 billion worth of development across the country, according to Data Center Watch. At the federal level, lawmakers like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) support a pause on data center development.

Candidates running on key AI platforms have already seen money from groups like LTF and PFA poured into their races. That’s what happened to New York State lawmaker Alex Bores, who is currently running for reelection and cosponsored a bill originally meant to add safety and transparency requirements for large AI model developers. Despite LTF’s larger war chest, Carson believes public opinion is on his side, and says now is the time to push back against efforts to block state regulations.

Concerns over job loss could also rise to the top of voters’ AI concerns as soon as this summer, according to Brendan Steinhauser, CEO of The Alliance for Secure AI, a nonprofit that aims to “defend humanity” in the AI age. “Based on what the technology is doing, and based on what leaders in the industry are saying about the technology, I think that gives me a signal that it could happen really fast,” he says. Jobs impact is also a key concern for many in Gen Z, says Tyson.

The Alliance runs an online tracker of layoffs attributed to AI. So far, it’s tallied over 110,000 job losses in the US. Many have been at large tech companies — 30,000 came from layoffs at Oracle alone. But Steinhauser believes the threat may soon become more broadly tangible, as job loss is expected to hit everything from the legal profession to general administrative jobs. “That’s when I think it’s going to really be a much more salient issue across the country,” he says.

Carson says that he consistently hears from pollsters that “they’ve never seen an issue rise up those ranks faster than AI is.” While many voters may not spontaneously mention it, “if you introduce the idea of AI and then raise things like price concerns or job concerns, they’re very salient.” But it still may be hard to vote based on that. “The candidates themselves aren’t necessarily clearly differentiated on how they want to approach AI because it’s a nascent and emerging issue,” he says.

If voters aren’t (yet) closely tuned into AI issues, why are industry leaders spending millions on campaigns? Experts say it’s because there’s still more to be gained. “That public story is a little bit different from who actually has power,” says Purdue University associate political science professor Daniel Schiff. Headlines about Anthropic’s decision to hold its ground against the Pentagon and mass domestic surveillance, for example, might not reach many American voters, he said, but could help with “positioning themselves with respect to the government.”

Carson says AI is “a great issue to run on” because “most politicians are just now waking up to how powerful public sentiment is about guardrails on AI. But you’re going to see more and more people embrace it because an entrepreneurial politician sees the opening here.” Sure, the billionaires behind Leading the Future “will try to destroy you, but there’s a limit to that, right? They can’t destroy us all.”