The blue tsunami was a game-changer.

A zeitgeist-altering, narrative-shifting force of electoral nature, after which things’ll never be the same.

I’m just kidding. I think “game-changer” works. The rest is hyperbole.

As I put it in a comment a few days ago, America needs structural reform. Until there’s a society-wide reckoning with Steinbeck’s famous assessment of America’s collective delusion (“I guess the trouble was that we didn’t have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist.”), nothing much is going to change other than the names of the politicians and the colors of the states on an electoral map. In short: Americans are still going to be Bowling Alone and dying from Deaths of Despair.

But when I say “nothing much is going to change,” I’m speaking from the perspective of the American everyman. The election will obviously have consequences for markets and policy. In the midterm week edition of his popular “Flow Show” series, BofA’s Michael Hartnett spelled some of those consequences out, and speculated on the read-across for earnings growth and asset prices.

“The Democratic tsunami signals an electoral shift from populist capitalism to populist socialism,” he began. “The next big direction in tax and regulation is up not down, which is EPS negative.” (Cue Mr. Bill: “OHHHHH NOOOOOO!!!!”)

The figures below, from Hartnett’s note, show what mattered to Americans when they cast their ballots this week, according to the SSRS voter poll.

Basically, voters were fed up with all things “Trump 2.0,” and they don’t love the data centers. Particularly not if the question is whether they want one close to their home.

What does this mean for the economy and markets? Well, it’s pretty straightforward, if you ask Hartnett.

“2027 policies to improve affordability and redistribute wealth will challenge the K-shaped consumer boom, the AI capex boom and the ‘stocks are too big to fail’ Wall Street zeitgeist,” he wrote, adding that Trump’s “loss of political capital” means the administration won’t be as able to “coerce corporations and foreign governments,” and could thereby be hobbled in its capacity to  win the AI war with China and monopolize scarce resources around the world.

Voters, Hartnett said, summarizing, “want a cheaper cost of living, an end to the war and slower AI data center expansion.”

For months, Mike’s cautioned that unless the AI boom is the railroad revolution, we might’ve reached peak concentration this year as measured by the AI trade’s share of overall market cap.

There’s the chart on that. Between them, the Mag7 plus Broadcom, AMD and Micron comprise more than 40% of US market cap, on par with Japan’s share of global stocks in the late 80s and TMT’s share of the market stateside during the dot-com boom.

That concentration bubble may burst imminently, Hartnett appeared to suggest, while cataloguing other market-related election takeaways, including a preference for gold over oil, tech bonds over tech stocks, consumer stocks over energy equities and “small-caps over monopolies.”

This week’s political shift “isn’t as regime-changey as the elections of ’79/’80 or 2016,” he went on, but the 2026 midterms likely mean “peak AI equity concentration.”

The title of this week’s “Flow Show”: “DEM Fatale.” (Golf clap, Mike. Golf clap.)