MKOR Survey: Romania Votes for Its Future in the Second Round of the 2025 Presidential Elections

In 2025, Romania enters the second round with emotions running high – and we bring you the most solid data we have ever published so far.

Just days before the decisive vote, MKOR has put Romanian voters under the microscope through a study carried out 100% independently and self-funded. In uncertain times, where numbers face opinions, we bring more than simple “snapshot surveys”:

• Nationally representative sample – 3,357 respondents, with a margin of error of ±1.7%, the smallest of all our surveys to date.
• Longitudinal design in three representative waves (May 8–9, 10–11, and 12–14): we followed voters’ daily shifts in perception, not just a static “photograph.”
• Statistical modeling of undecided voters and non-responses to anticipate real redistribution scenarios.
• In-depth analyses of civic engagement, demographics, reasons for abstention, voting profiles, and electoral priorities.

We conduct these surveys with one clear purpose: to bring truth through data and transparency. When citizens understand that rigorous methodology and work carried out with genuine openness ensure both scientific accuracy and freedom of expression, trust in data becomes possible.

In the following lines, you will find valuable insights that reveal not only who is leading, but also what factors could tilt (or secure) the path Romania will take further.

Why We Repeated the Study

• The context shifted quickly: alliances, withdrawals, and debates reshaped the scoreboard overnight.
• Comparability: we maintain the same methodology, so you can see the “apples-to-apples” comparison.
• Responsibility: when numbers become public interest, we commit to updating the picture until the very last moment.

In short, we repeated the study because the electoral landscape does not stand still, and you deserve data just as solid as those we have already provided.

Nicușor Dan 34% vs. George Simion 32%

The second round opens with a small statistical distance – 2.2 percentage points between the two finalists:

• Nicușor Dan – 34,2% declared intentions
• George Simion – 32,0% declared intentions
• 4,5% „Don’t know / Undecided”
• 12,6% refuse to disclose their vote
• 6,8% state they will not vote in this round

If we look only at respondents determined to choose a candidate (redistributed votes), Nicușor Dan rises to 51.7%, while George Simion reaches 48.3% – an advantage that is more symbolic, leaving the outcome of the second round in the hands of the undecided.

Nearly a quarter of the electorate (27.1%) remains either undecided or reluctant to publicly disclose their choice. This “grey zone” is larger than the gap between the two candidates and could overturn the ranking with the slightest wave of emotion or misinformation.

Over the six days of monitoring voting intentions, we observe an almost linear movement – but with opposite directions for the two competitors.

Nicușor Dan gains, on average, about one percentage point with each wave: 32.1% → 33.8% → 35.3%. For the first time since the announcement of the first-round results, he passes the symbolic threshold of 35%, suggesting that the presidential debate message has begun to resonate.

George Simion loses ground at exactly the same pace: 34.1% → 30.4% → 32.0%. The steep drop in the first two days was partially recovered after May 12, yet the overall trend throughout the study period remains downward.

The undecided gradually melt away – from 17% to 13.3%. This indicates that the electorate is beginning to align into camps, while each additional percentage point becomes increasingly harder to win.

The “No answer” category rises to 13.3%, likely an effect of intensified vote concealment (spiral of silence), particularly in rural areas where surveys may be met with suspicion.

Declared groups of “Will not vote / Blank vote” remain small but stable: 6.5% combined, still significant enough to count in such a tight race.

What does the trend mean for election day?

If the trend remains linear, Nicușor Dan could reach 37% declared intention by Friday evening, which would symbolically position him as the favorite. But (and this is a major “but”) Sunday’s mobilization could overturn three waves of tracking within just a few hours.

Simion critically depends on the undecided electorate and on the high turnout of his traditional supporters.

In short, the trend favors Nicușor Dan, but the margin remains fragile. The only truly decisive indicator becomes actual turnout – and here, the 71.8% who state with a 10/10 certainty that they “will definitely go to vote” can still change everything if absenteeism has an asymmetric impact.

When Mathematics Beats Emotion: Modeling the Undecided Propels George Simion to 52%

Declared intentions tell one story, but the redistribution of “hidden” votes from the undecided, non-responses, and null/blank ballots may rewrite the ending.

To inclusively account for these responses, we used a mathematical allocation model based on socio-demographic profile (age, education, income, residence), first-round voting and past elections, similarity of voting motivations (anti-system vs. integrity/competence), and declared intention to go to the polls.

The result based on a sample of 3,130 respondents shows:

Why does the leader change?

Greater weight of the “silent vote” in Simion’s base: 34.4% of his modeled score comes from undecided & NR, compared to only 23.1% for Dan.

Discreet rural electorate: more often responds “Don’t know / No answer,” yet historically aligns with the AUR candidate.

Anti-system motivation: 51% of Simion’s voters are driven by anti-system sentiment, attracting those who hesitate to state their choice publicly, but mobilize once in the voting booth.

Key Implications

Mobilization matters more than persuasion: even small turnout variations within a “hidden” pool can overturn the final percentage.

“Get-out-the-vote” campaigns of both candidates become the decisive weapon; each point of unaccounted absenteeism can be worth around ±80,000 votes.

The spiral of silence may be real: the rise of non-responses (12% → 13%) offers a latent advantage to the camp that capitalizes on late mobilization.

The chart shows how the gap between modeled figures that include the undecided has narrowed over six days: Nicușor Dan rises from 44.8% to 49.3%, while George Simion drops from 55.2% to 50.7%, with the final difference of 1.4 p.p. falling below the margin of error.

In other words, Dan has the momentum, but the numerical advantage remains with Simion, and the winner will be the one who brings voters to the polls on May 18.

Who does not vote and why? Distrust remains the main “candidate” of absenteeism

Although 7 out of 10 Romanians state with certainty that they will go to the polls (10/10 score for voting intention), there is a core of 472 respondents – 14% of the sample – who declare that they are unlikely to vote on May 18. We asked them directly: “What is the main reason?” and by scoring answers from 0 to 5 we obtained an eloquent diagnosis.

52.5% of the 472 respondents who oscillate between abstention and a blank vote state that they have no trust in any candidate or party. The rest of the reasons are much more fragmented, showing that systemic distrust dominates any single source of disappointment.

In a race where differences are measured in tenths of a percent, absenteeism is, in fact, the third candidate. Victory goes to the one who manages to bring more supporters out of their homes.

Trust Thermometer: How the Supporters of the Two Candidates View Romania’s Institutions

Imagine Romania as a grid where every institution, no matter how small, receives a score of trust from citizens. And this is where the supporters of Nicușor Dan (turquoise) and George Simion (yellow) are placed.

The values shown are the average trust scores on a scale of 1–7, converted into percentage readability (N = 2222 declared voters).

Two Romanias – What the Data Shows

• The only “bridge” between the two Romanias remains the School, with 72% high trust for ND vs. 71% for GS.
• The Church is the AUR bastion – 72% of Simion’s supporters show greater trust compared to just 56% in Dan’s camp.
• Economic and regulatory institutions (Companies 69% vs. 56%, National Bank 67% vs. 55%, Commercial Banks 59% vs. 51%) are Nicușor Dan’s turf – a vote of confidence for expertise and stability.
• Justice and the Press: a gap of 9–16 pp in favor of ND, a sign that his electorate tends to report more positively on the rule of law and the media sphere.
• Government, Parties, Parliament remain at the bottom of the ranking, though differences persist: 44%–36%–42% (ND) vs. 34%–34%–32% (GS).

The message behind this graph is simple and painful: the democratic-institutional legitimacy is fading before our eyes. When the Government, Parliament, and parties barely convince one in ten Romanians to grant them trust, we are not just witnessing an agitated electoral cycle, but rather a structural crisis of trust.

In this vacuum, the electorate gravitates toward candidate-symbols – some seen as “technocratic repairmen,” others as “system demolishers.” Without sustainable and visible reforms – from the professionalization of administration to genuine transparency and decent public services – the barometer of trust will continue to swing in red, and politics will remain captive to the emotions of the moment.

In short, the numbers do not crown a winner on May 19, but call for a credible plan of institutional reconstruction. Whoever occupies Cotroceni has the hardest test ahead: to turn Sunday’s vote into a mandate for restoring the social pact of trust between state and citizens, in a more transparent and equitable framework.

The Engines of the Vote: “Anti-system Change” vs. “Integrity & Competence”

Behind the electoral scores lie two radically different emotional drivers that equally impact both urban and rural voters.

n = 2196 respondents who declared their candidate choice; Open-ended question, later coded

Anti-system – what it means in practice

There is a clear educational divide: “anti-system” sentiment rises to 40% among those with only general studies, but drops to 15% among university graduates, where competence and political/ideological orientation prevail.

There is also a post-vote risk of polarization, where a close result would leave half of the country convinced it must either repair or dismantle the system. The 2025–2030 mandate will depend on the winner’s ability to convert emotional momentum into long-term institutional trust.

Why it matters

End-of-campaign messages: Simion maximizes the rupture emotion and the “us vs. them” narrative, while Dan capitalizes on competence and anti-corruption. Yet, both must still convince the 12% who vote only for “the lesser evil.”

Mobilizing the undecided: The Gen Z segment, which says “the vote does not matter,” reacts more strongly to personal impact stories than to abstract reform ideas.

Risk of post-electoral polarization: The defeat of either candidate will leave behind a hard core of voters convinced that “the system betrayed them.” Managing this frustration capital will be the first test of the 2025–2030 mandate.

The battle is no longer only about who wins more votes, but about what kind of mandate the winner receives: one of responsible reconstruction or one of demolishing old structures. The next few days will show which story resonates better, and how much civic energy remains after May 19.

Two Electoral Romanias: Urban-educated-prosperous vs. Rural-low-income

When you overlap voting maps with maps of education, income, and residence, you see two countries living in the same space but voting for completely different futures.

What the Two Camps Actually Look Like

The Romania that supports Nicușor Dan lives predominantly in cities and has gone through higher education: four in ten of his supporters hold university degrees, and nearly three-quarters reside in urban areas.

On the other hand, George Simion’s electorate is concentrated in rural areas and small towns: exactly half of his voters live in villages, and 55% have only general studies. The dominant segment consists of inactive individuals (61%), drawn by the anti-system discourse and the promise of rapid change.

Urban Romania, educated and with stable professional positions, bets on competence and reform, while rural Romania, economically vulnerable, seeks a radical reset of the status quo. On Sunday, at the polls, these two social slices will dispute not just an office, but the direction the country will take for at least the next five years.

The Ideal President: What They Should Look Like – and What They Should NOT Look Like

Looking at the selections made by the voters of each candidate, two lists of priorities emerge that barely intersect.

In Nicușor Dan’s camp, the top choices focus on education, integrity, and rationality. “Educated” is by far the most frequently mentioned trait, followed by “Integrity” and “Rational.” “Close to the people” appears, but does not dominate, while “Patriot” ranks only fifth. For this electorate, intellectual competence and personal ethics are essential.

In George Simion’s camp, the hierarchy is reversed: voters place “Close to the people” and “Patriot” first, followed by “Decisive.” “Educated” and “Integrity” sink to the bottom of the list, while “Traditionalist” firmly rises to the top. The message is clear: the rural segment and economically vulnerable categories want a familiar leader, willing to act quickly and without nuance.

Rejected Traits

When it comes to the “absolutely not,” both groups highlight the label “puppet” – the first “red flag” for any candidate. Beyond this point, however, the differences become sharp:

• Nicușor Dan’s supporters penalize most strongly the lack of education, followed by arrogance and international isolation; they firmly reject radicalism.
• George Simion’s supporters are more lenient with these flaws but react immediately to a president perceived as “weak” or indecisive.

Leader Archetype: Technocratic Reformer vs. Voice of the People

When voters were asked to choose from four generic descriptions the type of president they would prefer, the options aligned almost perfectly with the campaign front lines.

Nicușor Dan’s supporters clustered overwhelmingly around the profile of “Reformer, open to the West” (43%), followed by “Technocratic, educated, with an international reputation” (27%). Only one in ten would choose a “Nationalist leader” or “Voice of the people.” For this electorate, legitimacy comes from expertise and the ability to anchor Romania in a Western framework.

George Simion’s voters, on the other hand, are strongly drawn to the images of “Voice of the people, with simple and direct speech” (38%) and “Nationalist leader, focused on protecting Romanian identity” (39%). Technocratic profiles gain only marginal support (4% each). AUR voters clearly validate a leader emotionally connected to the broader public and centered on sovereigntism.

What Worries Romanian Families in 2025: Taxes and Bills Weigh More Than Any Slogan

The latest wave of the survey makes it clear: daily concerns press the voting button just as strongly as ideology. When asked to select the top three worries for their families, respondents produced an almost self-evident ranking:

• Taxes and duties – 41.9%
• Basic expenses – 41.3%
• Salary levels – 35.8%

Health (physical 32.5%, medical costs 24.3%) and job security (29.5%) complete the picture, confirming that in Romania, the “campaign boss” remains the household budget.

Who presses the button

George Simion’s electorate (low income, rural environment) raises the alarm on taxes and salaries lower than the national average, while Nicușor Dan’s supporters (higher education, higher incomes) shine the spotlight on the quality of education and mental health. The differences are not just statistical—they dictate the language of the last campaign days: the promise of “tax relief” versus the promise of “investment in education and performance.”

Why it matters on election day

When “who pays the bills and the daily shopping cart” becomes the key criterion, any political message translates into money gained or lost at the end of the month. The candidate who manages to credibly connect electoral reform to the voter’s household budget gains a quiet but decisive advantage. In such a fragile balance, it is the economy that votes, but the voter decides who carries it forward.

Transparent Methodology – In Short, But With All the Cards on the Table

The study is cross-sectional in each wave, but applies the same quotas and weights so that the final aggregate reflects the population entitled to vote. For analyzing the undecided, we used a logistic regression model with socio-demographic and electoral behavior variables.

We benefited from the expertise of Professor Mircea Comșa, to whom we are grateful for his support in modeling and weighting the data. With over 25 years of experience in social and electoral research, his methodological input was essential to ensure the results are as robust statistically as they are valid scientifically.

No part of this research was funded or influenced by any political actor.
MKOR bore the full costs, in order to guarantee the independence of the results and the freedom to present the whole picture truthfully in the final report.

The Future Will Be Decided on May 18 – But the Data Remains, as a Compass, Even After Election Day

In a race where 2–3 percentage points can change the president, every hour of mobilization counts. Beyond the immediate electoral stakes, the Consumer Sentiment study reveals three key messages that no leader, party, or business can afford to ignore:

• The trust crisis is structural. Parties, Parliament, and Government fight for the bottom ranks in credibility. Any viable public strategy must rebuild, not just win.
• The socio-economic divide is deepening. The educated urban and vulnerable rural populations meet only at the polling station. Each public policy and communication campaign requires a dual-circuit message, tailored to both Romanias.
• Economy trumps ideology. Taxes, bills, salaries – these are the “permanent campaign” issues that will persist well after the ballots are counted.

If you know these coordinates, you can transform the emotion of the moment into strategic, long-term action.

We Live in Times When Good Decisions Are Made on the Basis of Data. MKOR Can Be Your Partner

At MKOR we believe that every winning strategy starts with a measured truth, not an intuition. That’s why we constantly invest in independent research, robust statistical tools, and expert teams that turn raw data into actionable insights. Whether you want to:

• test a new product,
• gauge the pulse of the electorate,
• or understand what motivates your clients,

we can deliver the complete picture—fast, transparent, and free from bias.

Discover our portfolio of Agile Research, market segmentation studies, or brand tracking to see how well-monitored data can shift the growth needle (or the vote) in the desired direction.

The real question is no longer whether you can afford a study, but whether you can afford to move forward without it.

Tell us your objective, and we’ll design the research to support it – write to us here and let’s start.