GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARD NATIONAL POLITICIANS

• According to the results of a survey conducted by the Rating Group in March 2012, among national politicians, residents of Ivano-Frankivsk trust Vitali Klitschko the most (64%), Arseniy Yatsenyuk (58%), Oleh Tyahnybok (51%), Yulia Tymoshenko (50%), and Anatoliy Hrytsenko (48%).
• Much fewer people trust Viktor Yushchenko (14%), Serhiy Tihipko (14%), and Viktor Yanukovych (5%).
• In terms of full trust (“fully trust”), Yulia Tymoshenko (23%) and Oleh Tyahnybok (22%) are the leaders.
• The leaders of distrust are Viktor Yanukovych (86%), Viktor Yushchenko (79%), and Serhiy Tihipko (77%).

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

• If elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine were held in March 2012, the Svoboda party would win in Ivano-Frankivsk. About 55% of voters would definitely take part in the elections, and another about 30% would probably take part.
• Thus, Svoboda would be supported by 25.7% of voters (among those who intend to vote), Batkivshchyna by 21.9%, Front for Change by 14.5%, UDAR by 8.2%, Civic Position by 4.8%, the Party of Regions by 3.5%, and Our Ukraine by 2.6%.
• Other parties would receive over 10%, and 13% of voters would be undecided.
• Over the past six months, the ratings of the leaders — Svoboda and Batkivshchyna — have not changed: in July of last year they were supported by 26% and 22% respectively. At the same time, UDAR increased significantly (from 3% to 8%), while the ratings of Front for Change (from 18% to 15%) and Strong Ukraine (from 3% to 1%) declined. It can be assumed that these parties lost their voters to UDAR.

DISTRICT

• If the parliamentary elections in the single-member district that includes Ivano-Frankivsk were held in March 2012, the winner would be the Svoboda candidate, the head of the regional council Oleksandr Sych (30.4%). His closest competitors would be the incumbent mayor, Volodymyr Anushkevychus from the Ukrainian People’s Party (16.1%), and Yuriy Solovey from UDAR (15.5%), who would share second and third place.
• Other possible candidates would be supported by far fewer voters: Ihor Prokopiv (8.8%), Roman Tereshko (8.5%), Zynoviy Shkutyak (6%), Ihor Zvarych (3.5%). 4.5% would support other candidates, and 6.7% would be undecided.
• Oleksandr Sych is supported by over 80% of Svoboda supporters, almost one in five supporters of Batkivshchyna and Civic Position, and one in ten supporters of UDAR and Front for Change.
• Yuriy Solovey is supported by over 70% of UDAR supporters and almost one in five supporters of Batkivshchyna and Front for Change.
• Volodymyr Anushkevychus is supported by almost one in five supporters of Batkivshchyna and Front for Change, and almost one third of Our Ukraine supporters.
• At the same time, for the possible Front for Change candidate Ihor Prokopiv, currently no more than half of his party’s supporters are ready to vote. For the possible Batkivshchyna candidate Roman Tereshko, only one third of his party’s supporters are ready to vote.

ELECTORAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF CANDIDATES

• Besides direct ratings, the electoral attractiveness of potential single-member district candidates was also studied.
• For Oleksandr Sych, 25% of voters would definitely vote for him, and another 31% could consider voting for him. Thus, his maximum potential is up to 56%. Another 19% have a positive attitude toward him, but not enough to vote.
• For Yuriy Solovey, 10% would definitely vote for him, and another 35% could consider voting for him. Thus, his maximum potential is up to 45%. Another 21% have a positive attitude but not enough to vote.
• For Volodymyr Anushkevychus, 12% would definitely vote for him, and another 28% could consider voting for him. Thus, his maximum potential is up to 40%. Another 22% have a positive attitude but not enough to vote.
• As we can see, all three candidates have significant reserves to improve their positions. Oleksandr Sych’s starting position is somewhat better: the number of his “hard” supporters (i.e., Svoboda voters) is at least twice as large as that of the others.
• Other candidates also have good, though more hypothetical, prospects.
• For Ihor Prokopiv, 5% would definitely vote for him, another 31% could consider voting, so his maximum potential is 36%. Another 25% have a positive attitude but not enough to vote.
• For Zynoviy Shkutyak, 5% would definitely vote, another 20% could consider voting, so his maximum potential is 25%. Another 25% have a positive attitude but not enough to vote.
• For Roman Tereshko, 6% would definitely vote, another 14% could consider voting, so his maximum potential is 20%. Another 20% have a positive attitude but not enough to vote.
• Finally, Ihor Zvarych could receive up to 11%. Another 13% have a positive attitude but not enough to vote.
• Oleksandr Sych can mobilize over 90% of Svoboda supporters. Yuriy Solovey over 80% of UDAR supporters, Ihor Prokopiv up to 70% of Front for Change supporters, and Roman Tereshko up to 50% of Batkivshchyna supporters.

DEMOGRAPHIC STRUCTURES OF ELECTORATES

• Traditionally, UDAR has the youngest electorate. Batkivshchyna and Svoboda also have relatively young electorates.
• Noteworthy is the unusual “rejuvenation” of Batkivshchyna’s electorate, which may be the result of attracting young people on the wave of protest sentiment caused by the conviction of Yulia Tymoshenko. This choice cannot yet be considered stable.
• Among single-member district candidates, young people most support Yuriy Solovey, Volodymyr Anushkevychus, and Roman Tereshko.
• Men support Svoboda, UDAR, and Civic Position more. Women support Batkivshchyna, the Party of Regions, and Front for Change more.
• Relatively more people with higher education are among supporters of UDAR and Front for Change, as well as Batkivshchyna and Svoboda. Among candidates: supporters of Roman Tereshko, Zynoviy Shkutyak, Volodymyr Anushkevychus, and Ihor Prokopiv.
• There are more employed people among supporters of Civic Position and Front for Change. Voters of Front for Change and the Party of Regions also have relatively higher incomes; accordingly, these are more supporters of Ihor Prokopiv and Ihor Zvarych.

CRITERIA OF CHOICE

• The key trait that, in respondents’ opinion, a parliamentary candidate from the district should have is keeping promises (58%).
• The candidate should also be able to bring change (30%), have a regional development program (22%), understand economics (21%), have management experience (18%), be a strong leader (21%), and be a patriot (16%).
• Less important for people is that the candidate be young and energetic (13%), honest (12%), able to find compromises (12%), care about ordinary people (10%), be reliable (11%), be religious (10%), understand legal issues (9%), speak clearly (8%), care about family values (7%), engage in charity (7%), have political experience (5%), care about traditions and culture (4%), and have legislative experience (4%).

LOCAL PROBLEMS

• According to city residents, the main regional problems are poor road conditions (57%), unemployment (56%), rising prices and inflation (46%), and poverty (42%).
• Other important problems are alcoholism and drug addiction (33%), rising utility tariffs (32%), declining industry (30%), mass migration abroad (29%), and corruption in local authorities (29%).
• Less important problems include homeless animals (21%), lack of attention to youth issues (20%), waste collection and disposal (19%), lack of playgrounds (19%), rising crime (18%), poor healthcare (18%), neglected agriculture (15%), poor ecology (15%), pressure on small and medium business (14%), and lack of government transparency (13%).
• Even less important problems are violations of democracy, human rights and freedoms (9%), poor water supply and drainage (8%), poor housing development (7%), poor development of sports and football (7%), poor public transport (7%), poor education (6%), and suppression of national culture and language (6%).