Bitcoin transactions happen significantly more outside of the US so US affairs don't have much influence on supply an demand, just my take. Also, I can't think of anything that would be discussed in the debate that could spark any movement in Bitcoin.
I'd agree if USA didnt have its boot stuck in everything and every country by virtue of being the worlds reserve currency. I dont get why people would ever say different, the influence of USA politics is gigantic and sure in theory it shouldnt matter. I dont care about either candidate, mostly I think they just blow hot air and the words amount to little ultimately.
True leadership is rare however perceptions and markets will alter according to likely government policy over the next 8 years. The reason is that so much of USA influence is based around debt and trade outside its borders but transacted in dollars such as oil most obviously but also other goods. Words have influence in a world where most dollars rely on debt for their worth with political backing value not trade, that seems to me like an upside down triangle or jugglers scenario where financing is constantly trying to balance a situation to avoid loss. I think most people here acknowledge losses are occuring in favour of the issuer of currency, dollars which is 1 countries government.
In such a precarious and unbalanced situation, large changes could in theory happen. So we arent looking at a really stable situation, bitcoin could be influenced because its still a function of the dollar. People might say but China volume for bitcoin is massive or other arguements but of course China is looking at USA alot of the time for trade, money, policy, rates and a ton more. I'd love if world trade were solely based on the sound principal of just actual goods exchanged but politics overshadows everything and it will alter bitcoin as part of that chain imo
