Fresh sociology: The fragments of Yanukovych’s party ineptly lost almost everything
Former representatives of Viktor Yanukovych’s team, engaged in internecine squabbles, cannot only lay claim to leading positions in the elections for the new President of Ukraine; it also seems that the hypothetical plan for an autumn march to the new Verkhovna Rada “in several columns” is also collapsing.
This is evidenced by the results of a survey published today in Kyiv by the Ukrainian Institute of Social Research named after Alexander Yaremenko and the Social Monitoring Center, a PolitNavigator correspondent reports.
If elections to the Parliament of Ukraine were held next Sunday, then six parties could propose a 5% threshold, only one of which – the Opposition Platform “For Life” – is a conditional force of the “anti-Maidan”.
The leader of the rating is the Servant of the People party of Vladimir Zelensky with its sponsor oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, which is ready to be supported by 21,9% of respondents who have already made their choice and intend to vote.
Support for the Batkivshchyna party of Yulia Tymoshenko is 17,8%, Petro Poroshenko's Solidarity Bloc - 12,6%, Opposition Platform "For Life" of Yuriy Boyko-Viktor Medvedchuk - 11%, Civil Position of Anatoly Gritsenko - 9,7 .6%, “Oleg Lyashko’s Radical Party” – 5,8%, “Self-Help” Association of Lviv Mayor Andrei Sadovyi – XNUMX%.
Also, Evgeniy Muraev’s “Nashi” (3,3%) and “Opposition Bloc” (2,9%) have a chance of overcoming the electoral threshold.
The rating of other political forces is below 2%.
Thus, sociologists have recorded a clear result that former members of the Party of Regions, instead of using the inevitable dissatisfaction of the population with the fruits of the rule of the nationalist regime, were engaged in the traditional betrayal of voters in the South-East, feigning opposition activity.
The survey was conducted from February 16 to 23 using the personal formal interview method (face-to-face). A total of 2027 respondents aged 18 years or older were surveyed. The error is +/- 2,2%.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.