OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Stock market plunges after post-midterm surge

33 sources · updated 2026-11-06
Left 64% Center 15% Right 21%
21 left · 5 center · 7 right

What happened

After Democrats won control of both the U.S. House and Senate in the midterm elections, stocks rose sharply on Wednesday: the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained nearly 3 percent, or about 1,570 to 1,600 points, and the S&P 500 and Nasdaq each closed up roughly 1.4 to 1.6 percent. President Donald Trump accepted the results, said he would work with Democrats, and posted that the market had hit a record high. Healthcare, clean energy, housing, airlines, consumer staples, and large technology firms including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta advanced, while Tesla, SpaceX, Trump Media and Technology Group, defense contractors, and several AI and data-center stocks fell. On Thursday the rally reversed: the Dow closed down about 1,833 points, or 3.4 percent, wiping out Wednesday’s gain; the S&P 500 fell 4.3 percent; and the Nasdaq dropped 5.5 percent into correction territory, with Nvidia, AMD, and other AI-linked shares among the hardest hit. The dollar weakened, oil prices fell, and gold rose as investors also weighed Democratic gubernatorial wins in Texas, Georgia, and Ohio and local votes restricting data-center construction.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 33 articles

16 of 25 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared within the hour.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 16 of 25
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Tobin Marcus, Sameer Samana, JPMorgan, George Saravelos, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup strategists
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 18 of 25
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: market data, election results, CNBC Voter Poll
Credits another outlet 0 of 25
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 3 of 25
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 3, 17:46 UTC by Fox Business, with no named source. First named source within the hour, from CBS News. First document within the hour, from CBS News (market data).
Not counted 8
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK. Only left-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days; New York Post reported it on 2026-11-04.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage reports that US stocks closed sharply higher after Democrats won the House and Senate, a story right-leaning outlets had not covered as of publication. That coverage includes a Dow jump close to 3 percent, framed as a bet that divided government would restrain Trump's agenda. It also records declines in Tesla, SpaceX, and data-center stocks, a split a reader of the silent side would not see at all. Left-leaning coverage splits on what to put first. One version leads with voters having "rejected Trump and the Republican agenda" and with a weaker dollar. The other opens on big technology companies and healthcare names. That contrast never reaches a right-leaning reader. Was Wednesday a record high, as Trump posted, or only the best daily gain in more than a year?
Bottom line

The Guardian reported the Dow's best day in over a year after the Democratic sweep, and that session did not appear in right-leaning coverage.

The receipts — 3 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The Dow Jones rose close to 3%, its best day in over a year numberin The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Trump Media & Technology Group plunged 24.5% and hit a 52-week low numberin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Futures trading initially indicated US stock markets would open sharply lower contextin The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
The Guardian, CNBC, ABC News, The Hill, and CBS News described a two-day swing after Democrats took both chambers of Congress. They framed Wednesday’s rally as investors reacting to reduced election uncertainty, expected legislative gridlock that could restrain President Trump’s agenda, Trump’s overnight acceptance of the results, and historically strong post-midterm seasonality. The same outlets reported Thursday’s selloff, which erased those gains and put the Nasdaq into a correction, with ABC News detailing an approximately 1,800-point Dow drop and sharp losses in Nvidia, AMD, and other AI names. Coverage split winners and losers: solar and clean energy, hospitals and insurers, homebuilders, airlines, and hyperscalers rose; Tesla, SpaceX, Trump Media (down about 25 percent), defense and drone stocks, and AI-infrastructure names such as CoreWeave fell. Analysts quoted in these pieces said divided government may limit federal policy shocks while state-level data-center rules and Democratic governors-elect could slow AI buildouts, and that Trump can still move markets through tariffs, foreign policy, and regulation.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it rests on named indexes, closing levels, company moves, attributed analyst notes, and reported election outcomes, not a single unverified claim. Established in the reporting are Wednesday’s large gains, Thursday’s larger reversal, Democrats’ capture of the House and Senate, Trump’s public acceptance of the results, and the direction of major sector moves. Interpretations that the swing was caused by gridlock, AI-regulation fears, or Trump’s tone are market analysis, not proven causation. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for certified results, the next several trading sessions, formal state action on data-center moratoriums, guidance from AI and hyperscale firms, and any legislative or veto clash between the new Democratic Congress and the White House.

33 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.