Yes! From Wilson in 1918 to Truman, Eisenhower, Clinton, George W. Bush, and today’s Trump. For over a century, only these 6 presidents have experienced their party losing control of both houses during midterm elections.

But we can't look at the issue only halfway!

1️⃣ Voter choices do not represent an eternal mandate.

Political support has never been a permanent valid check.

2️⃣ Losing Congress does not equal losing political initiative.

Historically, Truman, Eisenhower, and Clinton all successfully won their next presidential elections after losing both houses of Congress.

In the next two years, Trump may be constrained, but he could also use the congressional gridlock to regroup supporters.

The difference lies in whether he can transform political conflict into actual governance results. However, Trump is already in his second term and cannot be directly compared to historical cases of re-election.

3️⃣ For the financial markets, political failure may not necessarily be bad for asset prices.

A divided Congress may reduce the likelihood of radical policies being implemented, but it may also lead to budget stalemates, debt negotiations, and regulatory uncertainties.

For U.S. stocks, the dollar, and BTC, rather than speculating whether Trump will retaliate, it is better to focus on how policy changes affect liquidity, interest rates, and market expectations.

Finally, I think the most thought-provoking aspect of this matter is the system itself. The American system is quite interesting; American politics is full of games, exchanges of interests, and it sometimes appears, as @mscryptojiayi said, like a huge makeshift troupe. However, regardless, the value of a system lies not in ensuring that every ruler is always right, but in whether there is power to correct and constrain when power deviates.

In the long term, I remain optimistic!

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。