Putin's approval rating in April established the historical anti-record-“Levada Center”

The rating of the approval of President Vladimir Putin in April fell to the historical one-only 59% of respondents against 63% in March have positively answered the approval of his activities, showed a new Levada Center survey . In reality, the results may be even worse, sociologists warn: due to self-isolation, the last survey was carried out remotely, and telephone polls usually give more conformist results.

We made the main business media in the country, now we are doing better-subscribe to the email newsletter of The Bell!

What happened

On April 24-27, the Levada telephone survey showed that 59% of respondents approve of the activities of Vladimir Putin as president, and 33% do not approve. For Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, the corresponding figures are 46% and 23%, for governors - 61% and 27%.

In March, a survey according to the standard methodology of a personal interview gave indicators of the approval of the head of state in 63% and 36%, which exactly corresponds to the March of the 2013 “Resetskiy”.

59% of approval is a historical minimum. The previous minimums of approval according to the Levada method were recorded in June 2000 and November 2013 - 61%.

“The very fact is that in April the trust in April Putin is expressed a slightly smaller number of respondents than in a personal interview in March, it can serve as an indicator of a decrease in trust and growing uncertainty of respondents,” Levada writes.

The open question of trust in politicians gave only 28% for President Putin (in January it was 35%). The second and third place from 13% were divided by Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu and Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. Exactly the same result for Putin (28%) in April showed a telephone survey of VTsIOM, this is a historical minimum.

What you need to know about the results

A comparable technique would most likely give an even greater drop in approval, notes the Levada Center.

Telephone surveys from the experience of sociologists always give more conformist results, and discrepancies can be 4-6 percentage points. “Thus, when reading the results of the survey given below, it is possible to take into account the likelihood of a hypothetical“ decrease ”of the indicator of certain mass installations in comparison with personal polls,” Levada emphasizes.

An open question (“What are 5-6 politicians that you trust most”) points to the core or solid supporters of the politician. This indicator for Putin for more than two years (autumn 2017 - the beginning of 2020) decreased from 67 to 35% (by 32 percentage points). The results of closed polls are more affected by propaganda, and the share of Putin trusting Putin in them decreased less-from 83-81% to 68-69% (by 13-14 percentage points).

• The average Russian who approves Putin without hints is a respondent with an average level of education, more often than elderly (40%), more often female, with a modest income and living in a village or in a small city.
• Below the average indicators of confidence in the president in young people (among 18-24 years more than half the average-12%).
• Among the more educated respondents, as well as-and noticeably-among the poor-22% (for comparison: among the wealthy or with moderate income-29-33%).

The state of anxiety before the future, associated with the social and economic consequences of the pandemic, manifested itself brighter in relation to Mishustin: a third (32%) of the respondents were generally difficult to evaluate his activity. This is a lot: satisfaction from the resignation of Dmitry Medvedev passed, but “the prime minister did not arise a new understanding and effectiveness of the activities of the prime minister,” Levada states.

Putin’s support remains the same, but in social reality new phenomena arise, sociologists summarize:

• Confidence in leading politicians and officials is reduced;

• The dissatisfaction of the poorest, imposing responsibility for the lack of assistance on the state, power and administration, intensifies;

• Social stress and diffuse discontent grow, as evidenced by a consistent and sustainable decrease in positive assessments of the situation in the country.