We predicted that presidential election results would spill over to influence the work domain. Individuals who voted for the winning candidate were expected to experience increased engagement, whereas individuals who voted for the losing candidate were expected to experience decreased engagement. We tested these predictions within the context of the 2016 US presidential election. Using a sample of 232 working Americans, work engagement and job performance were assessed one week prior to the election, the day after the election, and one week after the election. Contrary to our prediction, individuals who voted for Trump (the winning candidate) did not report increased work engagement, thereby providing no evidence of positive spillover. However, individuals who voted for Clinton (the losing candidate) were less engaged on the day after the election compared to baseline, demonstrating negative spillover. Downstream, work engagement was positively related to job performance. However, these effects were relatively short-lived, as engagement returned to baseline levels within one week following the election. Our results suggest that elections can have important implications for work-related outcomes. From a practical perspective we suggest that to the extent possible it may be prudent to avoid scheduling important work tasks for the days following presidential elections.Political opinions in the United States tend to be highly polarised along liberal versus conservative ideological lines (Bafumi & Shapiro, 2009;Mason, 2014), and political affiliations are often central to an individual's identity and exhibit considerable stability over time (Goren, 2005). As such, US presidential elections are often viewed as competitions, and members of opposing political parties are seen as rivals (Miller & Conover, 2015). Voters often feel a strong personal stake in election outcomes because losses represent threats to the status of the individual's political party as well as themselves.