Both Democrats and Republicans are considering making a change, but it’s Biden’s party that has more to lose.

Since 2020, one of the major questions hanging over the 2024 election is whether Latino voters will continue to ditch Democrats in favor of the GOP. Now, a new national poll of Latino voters offers some warning signs for Republicans as well as Democrats as the general election crystallizes: A sizable chunk of Latino voters appear to be willing to rethink their party loyalties.

Some 19.4 percent, or about one in five Latino voters, say they have considered changing their political affiliation either by switching parties or becoming independents, according to a national survey released by Florida International University (FIU) and the marketing firm Adsmovil. A majority of those wavering voters (61.1 percent) say they’d be open to leaving the Democratic Party and a plurality of those Democratic waverers (38.1 percent) would become Republicans.

Though that’s a small share of all Latino voters, that’s still a significant number for a demographic group whose loyalty to Democrats has been eroding since Donald Trump’s presidency.

The United States feels roiled by polarization, and the philanthropic world is seized with debates about what to do. Some scholars claim that Americans are so polarized they are on the brink of civil war. Other polls suggest that voters agree on plenty of policies and that polarization is an illusion. Some philanthropists call for pluralism and civility, while others lean into activism, believing polarization is a byproduct of change toward a more just world. So, is the United States polarized or not? If it is, what is causing the polarization and what are its consequences? Should polarization be solved or tolerated?

This paper is intended to answer these questions. It opens with five facts about polarization in the United States today and what those imply for possible interventions. A literature review follows, organized chronologically to explain the scholarly shift from thinking of polarization as an ideological, policy-based phenomenon to an issue of emotion, as well as the emerging understanding of polarization as both a social phenomenon and a political strategy. This paper is organized as follows.

Watch the Full Harris/Fox Interview, Fox News
Watch Harris go head-to-head with Bret Baier as she defended her record, criticized Trump on immigration and political rhetoric, and aimed to appeal to disillusioned Republican and independent voters.

Harris Leads Nationally by 5, Marist Poll
Harris leads Trump by 5 points among likely voters, with a tighter 3-point gap among registered voters. Trump leads with men and independents, while Harris leads among women and younger voters.

Carter Fulfills Goal, Votes for Harris, HuffPost
At the age of 100, former President Jimmy Carter fulfilled his goal of voting for Kamala Harris, with his family delivering his ballot as he remains in end-of-life care at home.

Fact Check on Crime Stat Claims, CBS News
Harris’s claim of violent crime near a 50-year low is accurate, while Trump’s claim of crime skyrocketing uses a different survey. Experts warn against using 2020 as a baseline due to COVID-19.

Regardless of where you come down on that question, though, there’s an entirely different way of thinking about government’s role in AI—one that I fear is little-discussed. And that is the government’s role in building capabilities and in providing the public goods that it is best-positioned to create.

The AI industry is in desperate need of safety and reliability evaluations, as well as technical standards for generalist AI. We are far from building mature versions of either of these, but we could be moving much faster than we are today. What role should the government play in this? Is it obvious that the private sector will produce optimal standards and evaluations on its own?