U.S. Midterms: What Investors Should Watch

22 Apr 2026 · 7 min · 5 chapters

Ask about this episode

Ask anything about it. ChatGPT or Claude reads this page and answers with the times it was said.

Connect VO and ask about every podcast you hear, including the moments you saved. Add to ChatGPT · Add to Claude

In short

U.S. midterm elections and what investors should watch for markets, focusing on how election outcomes affect fiscal policy, AI regulation, and short-term volatility (debt ceiling, shutdown risk).

Guests

Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research at Morgan Stanley; Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley.

Key claims

Midterms matter less than people think for macro policy direction because trade/geopolitics/deregulation likely continue regardless of who wins. The biggest potential impact is micro-level fiscal changes under divided government. “Robust” vs “fragile” majorities determine whether Democrats can negotiate delays/softening of SNAP and Medicaid shifts tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (cost shifts to states, tighter eligibility starting 2027–2028).

Notable examples

AI policy will proceed across parties, but pace/friction may change (infrastructure, permitting, energy/data centers). Sectors: power/data center REITs more exposed to AI infrastructure constraints; consumer/healthcare more exposed to SNAP/Medicaid. Expect episodic volatility from debt ceiling fights and government shutdowns; growth varies modestly across scenarios.

Written by AI. May contain mistakes. Listen to the episode to check what was said.

Chapters

Tap a time to open that second in VO

Understanding Election Impact on Markets

0:45 to 1:48

Discussion on how midterm elections influence market dynamics and policies.

“OK, so that seems a bit counterintuitive, right?”

Analyzing Policy Variables

1:48 to 3:14

Exploring key policy factors that will remain unchanged despite election results.

“So if those indicators end up being right and we do in fact see a divided government, what do you think investors should be paying attention to?”

Fiscal Policy and Election Outcomes

3:14 to 4:32

Insights into how fiscal policy will be influenced by the election results.

“Think appropriations bills or debt ceiling extensions, for example, that they will need to be consulted on in a split government scenario.”

AI Policy in the Electoral Context

4:32 to 5:59

Examining the implications of midterm elections on AI policy development.

“So think about things like how quickly infrastructure gets built, how permitting is handled, how energy constraints are addressed.”

Market Reactions and Future Outlook

5:59 to 7:16

Discussion on potential market volatility and economic forecasts leading up to the midterms.

“uncertainty, especially around funding deadlines.”
Hear the part that matters, and keep it.Open this episode in VO. Double tap your headphones to save a moment as you listen.
Get VO free

Transcript

Automatic transcript. May contain errors.

0:00Michael Zezas:Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.

0:05Ariana Salvatore:And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.

0:09Michael Zezas:Today, we're discussing the midterm elections and their implications for U.S. markets. It's Wednesday, April 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York.

0:21Michael Zezas:All right, so Ariana, midterm elections are coming up. And I feel like every cycle we hear the same question. How much do elections actually matter for markets?

0:31Ariana Salvatore:Yeah, I would say, you know, we're still six months out. And obviously, a lot of the market's focus has been on the U.S.-Iran conflict. But it does keep coming up in our conversations with investors. And to your question, our view is these elections probably matter a little bit less than people think, at least from a macro perspective.

0:47Michael Zezas:OK, so that seems a bit counterintuitive, right? Because policy has felt like a huge driver of markets recently. tariffs, geopolitics, really all the above.

0:59Ariana Salvatore:Exactly. But there's some nuance here. So policy does matter. But the big takeaway is that the direction of policy doesn't really change based on the midterms. That's because some of the key policy variables that you mentioned, trade, geopolitics, also deregulation, those are all likely to keep going regardless of who wins. At the same time, it's worth noting up front that the race itself is still pretty fluid. A lot of the indicators that investors are watching, polling, prediction markets, the president's approval rating, even things like domestic gasoline prices and consumer sentiment, they're somewhat giving mixed signals right now.

1:34Ariana Salvatore:There's a growing narrative around a potential Democratic sweep. But when you actually look in more detail at the Senate map, we think the path there is still pretty challenging. So I think it's important to emphasize there's much more uncertainty in the outcome than the headlines right now might suggest.

1:48Michael Zezas:So if those indicators end up being right and we do in fact see a divided government, what do you think investors should be paying attention to?

1:58Ariana Salvatore:There are some incremental shifts that will be worth watching, in particular as they pertain to fiscal policy. So for example, things like SNAP and Medicaid, those are the real swing factors depending on the election outcome. If you recall last year, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act legislated some changes to those programs that are meant to start taking effect in 2027 and 2028. Things like shifting more of the cost burden onto states and tightening eligibility requirements to offset some of the deficit impact from tax cuts. And where elections come in is around whether or not those changes actually get implemented or delayed or softened.

2:34Ariana Salvatore:In our view, the most likely way you can get meaningful adjustments is in some form of divided government, where there actually might be an incentive to negotiate around those fiscal cliffs. But crucially, we think that can only happen if you have what we call a robust rather than a fragile majority.

2:49Michael Zezas:OK, can you explain the difference between those two things?

2:52Ariana Salvatore:Yeah, so the question is not just who controls Congress. It's how unified they are. If you get a robust majority, that means the party can agree internally on what their core policy objectives are and then use their leverage in a cohesive way to extract political concessions from the opposing party. So to put it in simpler terms, if Democrats have a large enough majority or are able to coalesce around some of the key policy asks, for example, delaying some of these cuts, we think they can tie those to some must-pass bills. Think appropriations bills or debt ceiling extensions, for example, that they will need to be consulted on in a split government scenario.

3:29Ariana Salvatore:Now, conversely, if it's a fragile majority, you probably see more internal disagreement, less coordination, and a lot more political noise with less actual policy getting done.

3:40Michael Zezas:Okay, so a lot of good insights there. Can you boil it down to a few key takeaways for investors?

3:46Ariana Salvatore:Yeah, so one I would say is that fiscal policy is really where the midterm elections might matter the most. But even there, we think the impact is more micro than macro. Another is that divided government doesn't necessarily mean less policy activity. It just changes the form that it takes. And then, of course, there's AI, which is a topic that we've been getting a lot of questions about.

4:06Michael Zezas:Yeah, so let's dig in a bit more there because there's obviously a lot of interest in the intersection between public policy and the development of artificial intelligence.

4:17Ariana Salvatore:Yeah, this was the key focus of our policy symposium that we hosted in New York last week. AI is increasingly viewed as a strategic priority across both parties. So unlike some of these fiscal debates, we think that AI policy is likely to take shape regardless of the election outcome. What could change is the approach. So think about things like how quickly infrastructure gets built, how permitting is handled, how energy constraints are addressed. We're seeing growing recognition across the aisle that the bottleneck for AI isn't just on the innovation front. it's the physical infrastructure, power, data centers, and supply chains.

4:53Ariana Salvatore:Now, at the same time, there's also emerging pushback from communities and from policymakers around things like energy usage and cost of living. We've done a lot of research on this front, and it's actually a really critical factor in some of these off-cycle elections that we've seen even back to last year. So you end up with this dynamic where AI investment probably continues, but within a more constrained and increasingly regulated environment in the split government scenarios.

5:17Michael Zezas:So direction's the same, but the pace and the friction points may vary. And that has implications in particular for a few key sectors like power and data center REITs, while consumer and healthcare sectors are more exposed to those SNAP and Medicaid changes we mentioned earlier. Obviously, the more unified Democrats are, the more they're able to extend or push off those shifts, meaning the downside impact on the consumer could be limited versus current expectations. But aside from these policies we're watching, you'll probably see noise around debt ceiling fights, government shutdowns. And those things don't usually derail growth, but they can create volatility and short-term uncertainty, especially around funding deadlines.

6:03Right.

6:04Ariana Salvatore:And that's important for the macro outlook. So in short, our economists think that the growth outcomes are only going to vary modestly across the scenarios, while the broader business cycle should stay intact. Now, following from that, our rate strategists see episodic risk, to your point, around funding fights, which could drive risk-off rallies in notes and bonds, and then you have to weigh that against cooling expectations for growth and inflation in both the divided government scenarios. Similarly, our FX strategists see opposing forces between yields, fiscal policy, and the broader policy uncertainty variable, driving dispersion across currencies more than a clear dollar direction.

6:40Michael Zezas:Got it. So a lot to pay attention to ahead of the midterms. And we'll obviously keep people updated here about what we're seeing.

6:47Ariana Salvatore:Sounds good.

6:48Michael Zezas:Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.

6:50Ariana Salvatore:Great speaking with you, Mike.

6:51Michael Zezas:And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

7:02Ariana Salvatore:The preceding content is informational only and based on information available when created. It is not an offer or solicitation, nor is it tax or legal advice. It does not consider your financial circumstances and objectives and may not be suitable for you.

From the publisher

Although the conflict in Iran keeps dominating the news cycle, investors have an eye on the upcoming U.S. midterm elections. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore consider policy implications – from healthcare and consumer to AI.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.


----- Transcript -----


Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley.

Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research.

Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the midterm elections and their implications for U.S. markets.

It's Wednesday, April 22nd at 10am in New York.

All right, so Ariana, midterm elections are coming up. And I feel like every cycle we hear the same question. How much do elections actually matter for markets?

Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, I would say, you know, we're still six months out and obviously a lot of the market's focus has been on the U.S.-Iran conflict. But it does keep coming up in our conversations with investors.

And to your question, our view is these elections probably matter a little bit less than people think, at least from a macro perspective.

Michael Zezas: Okay, so that seems a bit counterintuitive, right? Because policy has felt like a huge driver of markets recently. Tariffs. Geopolitics. Really all the above.

Ariana Salvatore: Exactly. But there's some nuance here. So, policy does matter, but the big takeaway is that the direction of policy doesn't really change based on the midterms. That's because some of the key policy variables that you mentioned – trade, geopolitics, also deregulation – those are all likely to keep going regardless of who wins.

At the same time, it's worth noting upfront that the race itself is still pretty fluid. A lot of the indicators that investors are watching – polling prediction markets, the president's approval rating, even things like domestic gasoline prices and consumer sentiment – they're somewhat giving mixed signals right now. There's a growing narrative around a potential democratic sweep. But when you actually look in more detail at the Senate map, we think the path there is still pretty challenging.

So, I think it's important to emphasize there's much more uncertainty in the outcome than the headlines right now might suggest.

Michael Zezas: So, if those indicators end up being right and we do in fact see a divided government, what do you think investors should be paying attention to?

Ariana Salvatore: There are some incremental shifts that will be worth watching. In particular as they pertain to fiscal policy. So, for example, things like SNAP and Medicaid, those are the real swing factors depending on the election outcome.

If you recall last year, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act legislated some changes to those programs that are meant to start taking effect in 2027 and 2028. Things like shifting more of the cost burden onto states and tightening eligibility requirements to offset some of the deficit impact from tax cuts.

And where elections come in is around whether or not those changes actually get implemented or delayed or softened. In our view, the most likely way you can get meaningful adjustments is in some form of divided government where there actually might be an incentive to negotiate around those fiscal cliffs.

But crucially, we think that can only happen if you have what we call a robust rather than a fragile majority.

Michael Zezas: Okay. Can you explain the difference between those two things?

Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, the question is not just who controls Congress, it's how unified they are. If you get a robust majority, that means the party can agree internally on what their core policy objectives are. And then use their leverage in a cohesive way to extract political concessions from the opposing party.

So, to put it in simpler terms. If Democrats have a large enough majority or are able to coalesce around some of the key policy asks – for example, delaying some of these cuts – we think they can tie those two, some must pass bills. Think appropriations bills or debt ceiling extensions, for example, that they will need to be consulted on in a split government scenario.

Now conversely, if it's a fragile majority, you probably see more internal disagreement, less coordination, and a lot more political noise with less actual policy getting done.

Michael Zezas: Okay, so a lot of good insights there. Can you boil it down to a few key takeaways for investors?

Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so one I would say is that fiscal policy is really where the midterm elections might matter the most. But even there, we think the impact is more micro than macro. Another is that divided government doesn't necessarily mean less policy activity. It just changes the form that it takes. And then of course there's AI, which is a topic that we've been getting a lot of questions about.

Michael Zezas: Yeah, so let's dig in a bit more there because there's obviously a lot of interest in the intersection between public policy and the development of artificial intelligence.

Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. This was the key focus of our policy symposium that we hosted in New York last week. AI is increasingly viewed as a strategic priority across both parties. So, unlike some of these fiscal debates, we think that AI policy is likely to take shape regardless of the election outcome. What could change is the approach.

So, think about things like how quickly infrastructure gets built, how permitting is handled, how energy constraints are addressed. We're seeing growing recognition across the aisle that the bottleneck for AI isn't just on the innovation front, it's the physical infrastructure – power, data centers and supply chains.

Now at the same time, there's also emerging pushback from communities and from policy makers around things like energy usage and cost of living. We've done a lot of research on this front, and it's actually a really critical factor in some of these off-cycle elections that we've seen even back to last year.

So, you end up with this dynamic where AI investment probably continues both in a more constrained and increasingly regulated environment in the split government scenarios.

Michael Zezas: So, direction's the same, but the pace and the friction points may vary. And that has implications in particular for a few key sectors like power and data center REITs, while consumer and healthcare sectors are more exposed to those SNAP and Medicaid changes we mentioned earlier. Obviously the more unified Democrats are, the more they're able to extend or push off those shifts. Meaning the downside impact on the consumer could be limited versus current expectations.

But aside from these policies we're watching. You'll probably see noise around debt ceiling fights, government shutdowns. And those things don't usually derail growth. But they can create volatility and short-term uncertainty, especially around funding deadlines.

Ariana Salvatore: Right. And that's important for the macro-outlook. So, in short, our economists think that the growth outcomes are only going to vary modestly across the scenarios while the broader business cycle should stay intact.

Now, following from that, our rate strategists see episodic risk, to your point around funding fights, which could drive risk off rallies in notes and bonds. And then you have to weigh that against cooling expectations for growth and inflation in both the divided government scenarios. Similarly, our FX strategists see opposing forces between yields, fiscal policy and the broader policy uncertainty variable driving dispersion across currencies more than a clear dollar direction.

Michael Zezas: Got it. So, a lot to pay attention to ahead of the midterms and we'll obviously keep people updated here about what we're seeing.

Ariana Salvatore: Sounds good.

Michael Zezas: Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike.

Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

More from Thoughts on the Market

All 319 episodes
U.S. Midterms: What Investors Should WatchThoughts on the Market · 7 min
Listen in VO