Historical-source analysis: the original article was published on November 3, 2026, at 15:35:02 (UTC+8). It discussed that day’s U.S. midterm election as still upcoming; the analysis below preserves that context.
What the election-cycle chart measures
The Bitcoin comparison in the source measures price performance around U.S. midterm elections, using election day as the reference point. Its median-performance chart sets that day’s value to 100 and compares selected observations before and after the vote.
The Bitcoin sample covers just three completed election cycles: 2014, 2018 and 2022. The accompanying S&P 500 comparison covers 19 midterm elections from 1950 through 2022. The source attributes the calculations to IOSG, using daily closing prices for equities and CoinMetrics BTC PriceUSD data for Bitcoin.
This is a historical comparison, not a valuation model. It describes what happened around selected dates; it does not establish that elections caused the returns or provide a reliable price target.
Bitcoin: positive one-year returns, difficult paths
In all three completed Bitcoin cycles, the price was higher one year after the election than on voting day. But each also included further declines in the weeks after the vote.
The source reports:
- 53.8% average return over the following year, broadly consistent with the approximately 54% cited by Binance Research.
- Approximately −31% median return three months after the election.
- Approximately +45% median return after twelve months.
The short-term paths differed substantially. In 2022, the post-election decline was shorter-lived, and Bitcoin was already above its election-day price at the three-month observation.
That distinction matters: a positive twelve-month result does not imply a smooth recovery. Nor does the three-month median mean every cycle remained underwater for that long.
Why the pattern cannot isolate an election effect
The three historical midterm elections also occurred roughly two to two and a half years after Bitcoin halvings, each during a bear-market phase. The November 2026 election was scheduled for roughly two and a half years after the April 2024 halving.
Election timing and halving-cycle timing therefore overlap in this small sample. The comparison cannot determine how much, if any, of the subsequent recovery was attributable to the election itself.
The median curve has another limitation: it combines outcomes from different years. It is not the complete price path an investor actually experienced in any single cycle. The chart’s lines connect selected observation points; they are not forecasts. Applying that composite curve mechanically to a later Bitcoin price would create precision the evidence does not support.
The source also notes changes in market structure. Spot ETFs and corporate treasury participation can bring demand, but they can also transmit redemption pressure, financing stress and changes in risk appetite. A three-cycle historical comparison cannot settle how those channels will affect a later recovery.
The equity record is broader—but the starting point matters
The S&P 500 comparison is more extensive. Across all 19 midterm elections from 1950 to 2022, the index was higher twelve months later. The average gain was 15.1%, the median was 14.5%, and the weakest result was 1.1%.
For comparison, one-year periods beginning in early November in non-midterm years averaged 7.2%, with positive returns in about 70% of observations.
But the source cautioned against simply importing the historical average into 2026. The median maximum drawdown in the year before past midterms was 16%, compared with approximately 9% before the 2026 vote. In late October 2026, the S&P 500 was only about 3% below its October 6 record closing high, leaving less lost ground to recover.
Five earlier midterms combined a pre-election gain above 10% with a drawdown below 10%: 1954, 1958, 1986, 2006 and 2014. Their subsequent one-year returns ranged from 1.1% to 33.2%, with a 6.7% median.
That wide range is more informative than treating the median as a target. Even a more narrowly matched historical subset did not produce a dependable return forecast.
Policy is a channel, not a price formula
Congressional control could affect crypto legislation, regulatory oversight and agency appointments. The source nevertheless separates those mechanisms from a guaranteed market response.
It reported that a September 15 procedural motion to advance the CLARITY Act failed in the Senate, 49–50. A reconsideration motion left open the possibility of revival, but no second vote had occurred before the election recess. At publication, the remaining opportunity for that Congress was the post-election lame-duck session.
The legislative outcomes discussed were scenarios, not predictions. Regulatory agencies could also act within existing powers, although rules and staff guidance might differ from legislation in scope and durability.
What the comparison can—and cannot—tell readers
The source’s outlook was broadly constructive on equities but more uncertain about Bitcoin’s near-term path. It explicitly presented that view as judgment informed by history, not a forecast derived directly from the sample.
For Bitcoin, the indicators it highlighted were sustained spot-ETF inflows, improving liquidity, financing conditions and whether gains held when broader markets weakened. For equities, earnings growth, bond yields and the breadth of the rally remained important.
The useful lesson is limited but clear: a favorable one-year historical record can coexist with substantial interim losses. Three Bitcoin cycles do not establish a reliable election effect, identify a market bottom or justify projecting a median curve onto future prices.