Abstract Do electoral outcomes influence public support for the winning candidate's policy agenda? While voters are often assumed to evaluate candidates based on policy alignment, research suggests that partisan identity frequently overrides rational assessment. However, the extent to which the identity of the electoral winner legitimizes policy positions—particularly in the domain of foreign policy—remains underexplored. This research note leverages the 2024 U.S. presidential election as a natural experiment, using a preregistered two-wave panel survey to assess whether electoral victory influences public perceptions of the winning candidate's platform. Results reveal a moderate “winner effect”: Democratic voters exhibited an increase in support for Trump's foreign policy positions postelection, while support for Harris declined, even among her base. Nevertheless, winner effects produced shifts in foreign policy preferences commensurate with those on a highly salient domestic issue, challenging assumptions about greater volatility in foreign policy. Furthermore, preelection candidate support conditioned postelection stability, with winning-party supporters maintaining greater consistency. While electoral victories enhance the perceived legitimacy of the winner's platform, partisan identity remains the primary constraint, limiting large-scale ideological realignment.
Rubinson et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: