Much of the existing research on satisfaction with democracy examines cross-national dynamics of the winner-loser gap, exploring how institutional differences shape public opinion. In contrast, this study holds institutional factors constant and investigates how individual-level and system-level changes, i.e. actual transitions in political power following elections, affect people’s appraisals of democracy. In a panel survey that immediately precedes the January 20, 2025 inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump, and two post-inaugural follow-up waves, we find a shifting partisan gap in satisfaction with democracy in America. Following Trump’s inauguration, partisan Democrats become less satisfied with democracy, Republicans become more satisfied, while Independents’ views are largely unchanged. To explain the shift, we consider economic, emotional, and institutional mechanisms, where changes in presidential trust provide the strongest mediation of the power transition gap. Our results illustrate how presidential power transitions can raise alarms among opposing partisans, especially in highly polarized contexts.
AndersonCJ (2005) Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
2.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review91(1): 66–81.
3.
AndersonCJLoTempioA (2002) Winning, losing and political trust in America. British Journal of Political Science32(2): 335–351.
4.
AndersonCTverdovaY (2001) Winners, losers, and attitudes about government in contemporary democracies. International Political Science Review22(4): 321–338.
5.
AndrewsJHuangYS (2024) Winners, losers, and affective polarization. Party Politics31(5): 841–853.
6.
AnsolabehereSHershE (2012) Validation: what big data reveal about survey misreporting and the real electorate. Political Analysis20(4): 437–459.
7.
ArnsdorfAMorseCE (2025) Trump’s first-week strategy: ‘flood the zone. ’ Repeat. Washington Post, 25 January.
8.
AtkesonLR (1999) Sure, I voted for the winner!’ overreport of the primary vote for the party nominee in the national election studies. Political Behavior21(3): 197–215.
9.
BäckströmE (2025) Sore losers on election night? examining the temporal emergence of the winner–loser gap.European Journal of Political Research. doi: 10.1017/S1475676525100157.
10.
BakerK (2024) U.S. vote was peaceful, but Trump’s fraud claims hurt trust, international observers say. Washington Post, 6 November.
11.
BanducciSAKarpJA (2003) How elections change the way citizens view the political system: campaigns, media effects and electoral outcomes in comparative perspective. British Journal of Political Science33(3): 443–467.
12.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173–1182.
13.
BernauerJVatterA (2012) Can't get no satisfaction with the Westminster model? Winners, losers and the effects of consensual and direct democratic institutions on satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research51(4): 435–468.
14.
BlaisAGélineauF (2007) Winning, losing and satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies55(2): 425–441.
15.
ButlerLTBerryDC (2004) Understanding the relationship between repetition priming and mere exposure. British Journal of Psychology95(4): 467–487.
16.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWE, et al. (1960) The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.
17.
CraigSCMartinezMDGainousJ, et al. (2006) Winners, losers, and election context: voter responses to the 2000 presidential election. Political Research Quarterly59(4): 579–592.
18.
CuriniLJouWMemoliV (2012) Satisfaction with democracy and the winner/loser debate: the role of policy preferences and past experience. British Journal of Political Science42(2): 241–261.
19.
DaoustJFNemčokMBronieckiP, et al. (2024) Reassessing the winner-loser gap in satisfaction with democracy. PLoS One19(12): e0314967.
20.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper & Row.
21.
FarrerBZingherJN (2019) A global analysis of how losing an election affects voter satisfaction with democracy. International Political Science Review40(4): 518–534.
22.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
23.
GalstonWA (2024) Biden’s debate performance threatens his ability to win. Brookings Institution. Report.
24.
HalliezAAThorntonJR (2023) The winner-loser satisfaction gap in the absence of a clear outcome. Party Politics29(2): 260–269.
25.
HanSMChangEC (2016) Economic inequality, winner-loser gap, and satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies44: 85–97.
HayesAF (2012) PROCESS: a versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.
28.
HealyAMalhotraN (2013) Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science16(1): 285–306.
29.
HicksRTingleyD (2011) Causal mediation analysis. STATA Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata11(4): 605–619.
30.
HowellPJustwanF (2013) Nail-biters and no-contests: the effect of electoral margins on satisfaction with democracy in winners and losers. Electoral Studies32(2): 334–343.
31.
ImaiKKeeleLTingleyD (2010) A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods15(4): 309–334.
32.
JanssenL (2024) Sweet victory, bitter defeat: the amplifying effects of affective and perceived ideological polarization on the winner-loser gap in political support. European Journal of Political Research63(2): 455–477.
33.
KahanDM (2016) The politically motivated reasoning paradigm. In: ScottRBuchmannM (eds) Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. John Wiley & Sons.
34.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108(3): 480–498.
35.
Lewis-BeckMSStegmaierM (2018) Economic voting. In: CongletonRDGrofmanBNVoigtS (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice. Oxford University Press, 247–265.
36.
LodgeMTaberCS (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge University Press.
37.
LovelessM (2021) When you win, nothing hurts: the durability of electoral salience on individuals’ satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies69(3): 538–558.
38.
MillerJDKalmbachJWoodsLT, et al. (2021) The accuracy and value of voter validation in national surveys: insights from longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. Political Research Quarterly74(2): 332–347.
39.
MoldenDC (2014) Understanding priming effects in social psychology: an overview and integration. Social Cognition32(Supplement): 243–249.
40.
MongrainPNadeauRJérômeB, et al. (2025) State-level forecasts for the 2024 U.S. presidential election: trump back with a vengeance?PS: Political Science & Politics58(2): 234–243.
41.
NemčokM (2020) The effect of parties on voters’ satisfaction with democracy. Politics and Governance8(3): 59–70.
42.
NemčokMWassH (2021) As time goes by, the same sentiments apply? Stability of voter satisfaction with democracy during the electoral cycle in 31 countries. Party Politics27(5): 1017–1030.
43.
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (2024) U.S. elections showed resilience of democratic institutions with a well run process in a highly polarized campaign. Report: 6 November.
44.
Pew Research Center (2024) Public trust in government: 1958-2024. Report: June 24.
45.
Pew Research Center (2024) Voters’ evaluations of the 2024 election process in the U.S. report.
46.
PirlottAGMacKinnonDP (2016) Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology66: 29–38.
47.
PrzeworskiA (2015) Acquiring the habit of changing governments through elections. Comparative Political Studies48(1): 101–129.
48.
RidgeHM (2024) Perceived party differences, election outcomes, and satisfaction with democracy. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties34(3): 427–447.
49.
Shockley-ZalabakPSMorrealeSP (2021) Voters’ perceptions of trust in donald trump in 2016 and 2019: implications for presidential leadership in the crises of 2020. American Behavioral Scientist65(3): 448–464.
50.
SinghSKarakoçEBlaisA (2012) Differentiating winners: how elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies31(1): 201–211.
51.
StataCorp (2023) Stata Statistical Software: Release 18. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.
52.
StiersD (2022) Performance voting, retrospective voting, and economic voting: conceptual clarity and empirical testing. Social Science Quarterly103(2): 399–408.
53.
ThalerR (1994) The Winner’s Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
54.
WellsJMKrieckhausJ (2006) Does national context influence democratic satisfaction? A multi-level analysis. Political Research Quarterly59(4): 569–578.
55.
WenturaDRothermundK (2014) Priming is not priming is not priming. Social Cognition32(Supplement): 47–67.
56.
WhittSYanusABallingrudG, et al. (2025) “Replication Data for: Satisfaction with Democracy after Presidential Power Transitions: Panel Survey Evidence from the 2025 Trump Transition in the United States”. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CK8MQR.
57.
WooldridgeJM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press.
58.
WrightGC (1993) Errors in measuring vote choice in the national election studies, 1952-88. American Journal of Political Science37(1): 291–316.
59.
ZhaoXLynchJJGChenQ (2010) Reconsidering baron and kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research37(2): 197–206.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
