来源：中金点睛 2026年是美国中期选举年，对特朗普而言，这是一个非常重要的节点。目前共和党在众议院仅有微弱优势，一旦失去多数、导致两院分治，不仅将削弱政 府的施政能力，还可能使特朗普本人面临被弹劾风险。与以往不同，本轮选举的民意焦点已转向高物价、高利率与高房价所带来的现实生活压力，"可负 担性"（Affordability）正成为最核心的不满来源。在这一背景下，单纯追求经济增长或资产价格上涨已不再具备最高优先级，回应民众切身感受反而更为 关键。 过去数年，美国物价水平高企，对中低收入群体形成了持久的挤压。住房领域尤为突出：房价与按揭利率同步上行，导致家庭住房可负担能力自2022年以 来明显降低。同时，居民债务偿付压力随着利率走高而上升，叠加关税政策与AI技术对劳动力市场的冲击，进一步放大了普通家庭的经济焦虑。这也意 味着，即便宏观数据稳健，选民的主观体感却可能依旧感到负担较重。 当可负担性上升为核心目标，政策取向也随之发生变化。相比传统的宏观政策，直接影响价格、利率与企业行为的行政干预手段，更可能被纳入政策选 项。近期特朗普在住房、金融与电力等领域频繁出手，并持续向美联储施压降息，反映出一种清晰的逻辑：当企 ...

Core Viewpoint - The 2026 midterm elections are crucial for Trump and the Republican Party, with affordability becoming the central issue for voters, overshadowing traditional economic growth metrics [2][5][7]. Group 1: Political Context - The Republican Party holds a slim majority in the House of Representatives, and losing it could lead to a divided government, limiting Trump's ability to implement policies [5][6]. - Historical trends indicate that the party of the sitting president often loses seats in midterm elections, increasing the risk of impeachment for Trump if the Republicans fail [6][7]. Group 2: Affordability Crisis - High inflation has significantly impacted middle and low-income households, particularly in housing, where affordability has sharply declined since 2022 [2][12]. - The median income required to afford a typical home has increased by 43% compared to the median household income, exacerbated by rising mortgage rates [12][14]. - The burden of debt repayment is rising, with delinquency rates on credit cards and loans nearing previous highs, indicating increased financial stress among households [13][18]. Group 3: Policy Implications - As affordability becomes a primary goal, policy measures may shift towards more direct interventions in pricing and corporate behavior, moving away from traditional macroeconomic policies [3][22]. - Recent actions by Trump include proposals to limit credit card interest rates and push for legislative changes in housing, reflecting a focus on alleviating cost pressures for voters [24][25]. Group 4: Market Impact - The focus on affordability may limit the expansion of index valuations and increase market volatility, as the government prioritizes voter concerns over asset price growth [32]. - Sectors with strong pricing power and high profit margins may face increased policy risks, while cost-benefit industries could become more favorable for investment [32][33]. - Historical examples suggest that aggressive policy interventions can lead to market disruptions, as seen in the 1970s, raising caution among investors regarding potential policy risks [30][31].