Bitcoin’s Post-Midterm Pattern: Three Elections, Three Gains, One Warning

With the next United States midterm vote only a few days away on November 3, 2026, a historical calculation is attracting attention among Bitcoin watchers. Published on October 28 from TradingView prices, it looks at what Bitcoin did in the year after each of the last three midterm elections. The results are striking on their face: Bitcoin rose 24.1 percent in the year after the 2014 vote, 44.9 percent in the year after the 2018 vote, and 92.1 percent in the year after the 2022 vote. The average of those three moves is 53.7 percent.

That pattern is interesting, but it is not a prediction. The author of the calculation says so explicitly, and the reasons for caution are as important as the numbers themselves. Only three observations exist, and two different four-year rhythms, midterm elections and Bitcoin halvings, overlap in a way that makes it impossible to isolate the effect of voting alone. This article therefore presents the pattern as a historical observation, not as investment advice, and it places the pattern alongside the very different market conditions Bitcoin faces as it approaches this year’s vote.

Three elections, three gains

The three data points form a simple but eye-catching sequence. After the 2014 midterm vote, Bitcoin gained 24.1 percent over the following year. After the 2018 vote, it gained 44.9 percent. After the 2022 vote, it gained 92.1 percent. Each gain is larger than the one before it, and the average of 53.7 percent sits well above what many investors would consider a strong annual return in any market. Taken together, they create a narrative that the year after a midterm vote has been a good year for Bitcoin.

It is worth pausing on what a one-year window actually captures. A year is a long time in crypto markets, long enough to include rallies, corrections, and wider economic shifts. Measuring from the vote to the same date a year later therefore captures a great deal that has nothing to do with the election itself. The calculation describes what happened after those votes, but it does not prove that the votes caused the gains.

The warning the author gives

The most important part of the calculation is its own warning. The author admits the sample is too short, with only three observations, and that two clocks run on a similar four-year rhythm: midterm elections and Bitcoin halvings. Because both cycles repeat roughly every four years, their effects are entangled. A gain in the year after a midterm vote might reflect the post-halving phase of the market, or wider economic conditions, or a recovery from a prior decline, rather than anything specific about the election result.

That warning matters because it prevents a neat story from becoming a false certainty. With only three points, a single different outcome in the next cycle would change the average dramatically. Investors who treat the 53.7 percent average as an expected return would therefore be building a decision on a very fragile foundation. The honest reading is narrower: in the last three cases, the following year was positive, and that is all the data can say.

Where Bitcoin stands this time

The starting point for this year’s vote also looks different from the earlier cases in an important way: how far Bitcoin has fallen from its record. This year, Bitcoin approaches the vote about 36 percent below its record of 126,080 dollars, at around 81,000 dollars at the end of October according to the article, although the current price is lower, near 77,000 dollars. That context matters, because it frames the calculation’s reference point rather than the live price at the moment of reading.

In the earlier cycles, the starting discount was much larger. In 2018, Bitcoin approached the vote about 67 percent below its 2017 record. In 2022, it approached about 73 percent below its 2021 record. Those were deep bear-market starting points, from which even a partial recovery could produce a large percentage gain. This year’s discount of about 36 percent is substantial, but it is not as deep as those earlier cases. That difference alone suggests that a simple repeat of the largest past gain should not be assumed, because the conditions that produced it were not the same.

The timeline that followed the halving

The calculation sits within a broader timeline that the source material sketches. The market peaked 18 months after the April 2024 halving, then dropped until June. Bitcoin fell below 60,000 dollars in June, more than 50 percent below its record, before rebounding more than 35 percent since. That sequence, a peak, a sharp fall, and a partial recovery, is familiar to anyone who has followed previous cycles, and it provides the backdrop against which the midterm pattern is being discussed.

Two market views add further context to that timeline. Galaxy’s view, as reported in the source material, is that the bear market ended in June and that the market entered an accumulation phase. Benjamin Cowen, meanwhile, anticipates a final drop in the fourth quarter to around 72,000 to 76,000 dollars. Those views are not identical: one emphasises a turning point already passed, while the other warns that one more leg lower may still lie ahead. Both, however, suggest that the period around the vote is a phase of transition rather than a settled trend, which is precisely when historical patterns are most tempting and most dangerous to over-read.

The halving clock and the window ahead

The other four-year clock in this story is the halving cycle. The next halving is expected in spring 2028, and the post-midterm window described in the calculation closes in November 2027, about five months before that halving. That timing is significant, because it means the one-year post-vote window ends before the next supply change arrives. Whatever happens in that window will therefore happen in the pre-halving phase, not in the immediate aftermath of a halving itself.

December 15, 2018 also marks a cycle low in the source material, a reminder that the post-midterm period has previously coincided with the bottoming of a bear market. That history contributes to the appeal of the pattern, but it also illustrates its fragility: a single cycle low does not establish a rule, and a low near one vote does not mean a low must occur near the next vote.

What this pattern should and should not do

The responsible way to use this pattern is as a prompt for questions, not as an answer. It invites investors to ask why the year after a midterm vote might coincide with recovery, whether the halving cycle or the economic cycle explains more of the move, and whether the current starting point is comparable to the deep discounts of 2018 and 2022. It also invites a check on risk: what would happen to a portfolio if the pattern fails this time, and is that outcome survivable? Those questions are more useful than the average figure on its own, because they force attention back to the conditions that actually drive prices.

The pattern should not be used as a forecast, a target, or a reason to buy or sell on its own. It is based on three observations, it cannot separate elections from halvings, and it was published at a moment when the price reference, around 81,000 dollars at the end of October, already differs from the current price near 77,000 dollars. Markets move quickly, and a historical average does not move with them. Readers who find the pattern interesting should therefore treat it as one small piece of context among many, alongside the halving timeline, the technical levels, and the wider economic environment, rather than as a signal in itself.

What is the post-midterm pattern described here?

It is a calculation published on October 28 from TradingView prices showing Bitcoin’s move in the year after each of the last three midterm votes: up 24.1 percent after 2014, up 44.9 percent after 2018, and up 92.1 percent after 2022, for an average gain of 53.7 percent. It is a historical observation, not a prediction.

Why does the author warn against over-reading it?

Because the sample is too short, with only three observations, and because midterm elections and Bitcoin halvings both follow a roughly four-year rhythm. That overlap means the electoral effect cannot be isolated from the halving effect or from wider market conditions, so the pattern cannot prove that elections caused the gains.

How does Bitcoin’s starting point this year compare with 2018 and 2022?

This year Bitcoin approaches the vote about 36 percent below its record of 126,080 dollars, at around 81,000 dollars at the end of October according to the article, with the current price lower near 77,000 dollars. In 2018 it approached about 67 percent below its 2017 record, and in 2022 about 73 percent below its 2021 record, so the earlier starting points were much deeper bear-market discounts.

What happened after the April 2024 halving, according to the source?

The market peaked 18 months after the April 2024 halving, then dropped until June, when Bitcoin fell below 60,000 dollars, more than 50 percent below its record, before rebounding more than 35 percent since. Galaxy’s view is that the bear market ended in June and an accumulation phase began, while Benjamin Cowen anticipates a final fourth-quarter drop to around 72,000 to 76,000 dollars.

When does the post-midterm window close, and what comes next?

The post-midterm window closes in November 2027, about five months before the next halving expected in spring 2028. That means the one-year period after the November 3, 2026 vote ends in the pre-halving phase, and the halving itself will bring a separate set of dynamics after that window has closed.

Source: WEEX

Related reading on MM Crypto Analysis Web

• Bitcoin Slides 8% in October for Second Straight Negative October
• Strategy’s Bitcoin Cushion Shrinks to 2% as Price Nears Its Average Cost
• Binance Targets Withdrawal Restart Within 34 Hours After $6.3 Billion Hack

More in Bitcoin on MM Crypto Analysis Web.