• According to the results of a survey conducted by the Rating Group, the leader of electoral preferences in multi-member electoral district #124 is VO Batkivshchyna. This political alliance would be supported, if elections were held in the near future, by 47.0% of respondents who intend to participate in the elections (84% in the district).
  20.3% would vote for UDAR, 19.0% for VO Svoboda. The ratings of other parties are much lower: the Party of Regions – 2.1%, Our Ukraine – 2.0%, “Ukraine – Forward!” – 1.7%, CPU – 0.7%. Other parties would be supported by 1.1% of respondents. 6.2% have not decided on their party preference.
• In the territorial breakdown, although the top three remain unchanged, some differences are visible. In particular, the rating of VO Batkivshchyna in the districts is one-fifth higher than in Chervonohrad (52% vs. 39%).
  In addition, UDAR enjoys significantly stronger support in Chervonohrad — here a quarter of respondents would vote for it, while in the districts UDAR’s rating is 17%.
  The rating of Svoboda is almost independent of territory and fluctuates between 18–20%. About 4% of respondents in Chervonohrad support the Party of Regions, while in villages this figure is much lower (1%). The share of the undecided does not depend on the area.
• The youngest electorate belongs to UDAR — half are under 40. Among the United Opposition, almost half are over 50.
  There are more men among supporters of Klychko’s party, more women among supporters of Batkivshchyna. UDAR also has more respondents who are employed. Two-thirds of Batkivshchyna supporters do not work.
  70% of UDAR supporters and 62% of Svoboda supporters live in cities, while Batkivshchyna has approximately equal numbers of urban and rural voters.

CANDIDATE RATINGS

• The leader of electoral preferences in the single-member district is S. Kurpil, whom 30.4% of respondents who intend to vote would support if elections were held in the near future.
  21.0% would vote for M. Kryshtopa, 12.5% for V. Viazivskyi, 7.0% for A. Seniuk. Other candidates have ratings below 2%. 22.7% remain undecided.
• S. Kurpil mobilizes almost half of Batkivshchyna supporters and a quarter of Svoboda supporters.
  However, UDAR supporters back him much less — only 9%.
• The closest competitor of S. Kurpil, M. Kryshtopa, mobilizes a quarter of UDAR supporters, every fifth undecided voter, and 16% of Svoboda supporters.
  A. Seniuk is popular mainly among one third of UDAR supporters.
• By territory, the candidate ratings look as follows. Support for S. Kurpil is slightly higher in the districts (33%), while in Chervonohrad 26% would vote for him.
  M. Kryshtopa is supported more in the city (25%), and less in the districts (18%).
  V. Viazivskyi is supported by 12–13% equally across territories.
  A. Seniuk is supported by 10% of respondents in Chervonohrad and only 5% in the districts.
• The youngest electorate is that of A. Seniuk — one third under 30. The oldest electorates belong to S. Kurpil and M. Kryshtopa — about 40% aged over 50.
  One third of UDAR’s candidate supporters have higher education, while among M. Kryshtopa’s supporters those with general or vocational secondary education clearly dominate.
  There are more men among A. Seniuk’s electorate, while women dominate among S. Kurpil’s supporters.
  Half of Kurpil’s electorate lives in villages, while among the other leading candidates two thirds of supporters live mainly in cities.