We’re at the end of another election cycle, and now is the time to start thinking of what this might mean for your portfolio, regardless of which political party gets the White House.

The Democratic Status Quo. In what many liberals would consider an ironic twist, a victory for Barack Obama is actually a win for the financial sector, since it would likely mean the current monetary status quo. The Federal Reserve would continue its easy-money policy that has kept interest rates low and boosted bank profitability.

Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), which originated almost a third of all mortgages in the US over the past year, has been a major beneficiary of low rates, with its average cost of funds falling this year to 1.3 percent.

And the bank isn’t a major player in the derivatives market, the real target of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As a result, its operations should be relatively unscathed if financial regulation ramps up in a second Obama administration.

But the first priority for the president would be the defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), otherwise known as “Obamacare.” With four more years of veto power, he’ll be able to thwart Republican efforts to undo this legislation.

Hospitals lose billions of dollars every year to “charity care,” the overdue bills that must be written off because of a patient’s inability to pay. Not only do those write-offs hurt a hospital’s bottom line, they raise costs for everyone else.

The PPACA will provide health care coverage to an estimated 32 million uninsured Americans, thus accommodating most of the more than 50 million people without insurance.

This vast expansion of coverage would be a huge boon for companies such as HCA Holdings (NYSE: HCA), which operates 163 hospitals in the Midwest and West. In the second quarter of 2012, almost 9 percent of the hospital chain’s admissions were uninsured patients, many of whom will never pay for their cost of care. If most of those uninsured patients were covered, it would lift the company’s revenue by as much as 5.5 percent.

The Republican Alternative. Deregulation has been a key theme in Mitt Romney’s campaign, with the candidate promising to limit the oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In 2011, the EPA finalized its boiler Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), aimed at curtailing emissions of carbon dioxide, mercury and other heavy metals from industrial boilers and incinerators. Romney claims this regulation endangers 800,000 jobs, and he has vowed to eliminate it.

Packaging manufacturers, such as Ball Corp (NYSE: BLL) and MeadWestvaco Corp (NYSE: MWV), would be major beneficiaries of a rollback in MATS. Ball is a leading supplier of metal-packaging containers ranging from aluminum soda cans to foil food packages, while MeadWestvaco provides paper packaging. Both rely heavily on industrial boilers, incinerators and smelters to make their products.

Compliance with regulations such as MATS, collectively costs these two companies millions of dollars every year. While these costs don’t have a huge impact on the companies’ bottom lines—Ball’s annual revenue last year was $8.6 billion while MeadWestvaco brought in $6.1 billion—it would be a savings nonetheless, allowing for more cost-efficient operations.

Playing Defense. In numerous speeches, Romney has slammed President Obama for not stopping the automatic cuts in defense spending that are slated to take effect next year. In fact, Romney says he would add $2 trillion to the defense budget.

This would mean higher profits for companies such as General Dynamics Corp (NYSE: GD), which supplies the US military with everything from submarines to computer technology.

With more than 70 percent of its revenue coming from the Department of Defense, General Dynamics would take a hit from defense cuts. Assuming sequestration becomes a reality, the company has forecast a 1.5 percent drop in revenue this year, as the Pentagon delays new orders while it waits to see what happens.

To be sure, the Pentagon won’t be left out in the cold, should the Democrats retain the presidency. Both parties historically support robust defense spending. However, expensive weapons systems tend to fare better when conservatives control Washington.