Why do people vote for populist candidates? This paper explores the reasons behind the electoral success of two populist politicians who won a presidential election in Latin America: Andres Manuel López Obrador (Mexico) and Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil). Although they represent opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, they have used a populist rhetoric both as candidates and as presidents. From the point of view of the electorate, these are riskier candidates because there is more uncertainty about their performance if they are elected. We argue that the voters who are risk takers will be more likely to vote for populist politicians. However, we do not believe that risk propensity is a general personality trait. On the contrary, we side with the literature that posits that the willingness of individuals to accept or avoid risks depends on the situation that they face. Here we use the insights of Prospect Theory to account for the electoral support of these populist politicians. This theoretical approach predicts that people will select riskier options when they are in a domain of losses; therefore, it is reasonable to expect better electoral fortunes for candidates who offer more ambitious platforms (regardless of their viability) among voters who are going through trying times. This pattern of choice does not conform with the expectations of classic decision theory, which would predict that these people should avoid the possibility of bigger losses by selecting the safer option in an unfavorable environment.  We use survey data from Mexico and Brazil to test our model.