[Public Opinion Briefing No. 113] The April 11 General Election and the Presidential Election Campaign

[Public Opinion Briefing No. 113] EAI·SBS·JoongAng Ilbo· 한국리서치 Joint 2012 General Election & Presidential Election 2nd Panel Survey

1. Presidential Candidate Competition Landscape After the General Election

2. Evaluation of Past Presidents and Perception of National Tasks

1. Presidential Candidate Competition Landscape After the General Election

(1) Support Fluctuations of the Big 3: Park Geun-hye Rises, Ahn Cheol-soo Slightly Rises, Moon Jae-in Stagnates

Park Geun-hye 31.8% to 38.8%, Ahn Cheol-soo 21.2% to 24.4%, Moon Jae-in 14.8% to 14.3%

■ Similar to the first survey, support for 12 potential presidential candidates was investigated using the question, "If tomorrow were the presidential election day, who among the following individuals would you vote for?" However, as all candidates except the Big 3 received less than 2% support, they have been excluded from this analysis.

■ The results of the second survey show a significant increase in Chairperson Park Geun-hye's support. Her support rose to 38.8%, a 7.0% increase from the 31.8% recorded in the first survey conducted before the general election. This outcome can be attributed to the Saenuri Party's election results, which exceeded expectations, and a reassessment of Park Geun-hye's leadership.

■ Professor Ahn Cheol-soo also saw his support increase by 3.2% from 21.2% before the general election to 24.4%. This can be understood as a reaction to the opposition parties' election defeat. In contrast, Advisor Moon Jae-in remained at 14.3%, nearly the same level as his pre-election support of 14.8%. This suggests a failure to make a distinct impression on voters as a presidential contender during the general election campaign.

[Figure 1] Support Rate Changes (%) of Major Presidential Candidates Before and After the General Election

■ These results are also confirmed by the shifts in support for these major presidential candidates before and after the general election. In Park Geun-hye's case, 90.1% of her supporters from before the election remained, and notably, 8.2% of Professor Ahn Cheol-soo's supporters and 6.6% of Advisor Moon Jae-in's supporters shifted their allegiance to her.

■ Conversely, Professor Ahn Cheol-soo and Advisor Moon Jae-in experienced outflows of 72.0% and 64.3% of their initial supporters, respectively, with Advisor Moon Jae-in showing a particularly significant drop in support. Within these changes, there was also a reciprocal shift between Advisor Moon Jae-in's and Professor Ahn Cheol-soo's supporters. 16.3% of Advisor Moon Jae-in's supporters switched to Professor Ahn Cheol-soo, and 10.6% of Professor Ahn Cheol-soo's supporters switched to Advisor Moon Jae-in. This reciprocal transfer of support, likely due to different reasons for disappointment with their chosen candidates during the general election, suggests that their support bases could potentially coalesce under certain circumstances.

(2) Characteristics of the Big 3's Support Bases: Dualization of Support Bases (Park Geun-hye vs. Ahn Cheol-soo + Moon Jae-in)

Park Geun-hye needs support from the youth, the Honam and Seoul Metropolitan regions, and progressive voters.

Ahn Cheol-soo needs support from middle-aged and older adults, the Yeongnam region, and conservative voters.

■ There are significant differences in age, region, ideology, and party affiliation between Chairperson Park Geun-hye's supporters and the supporter groups of Professor Ahn Cheol-soo and Advisor Moon Jae-in. Specifically, Chairperson Park Geun-hye receives primary support from those in their 50s and 60s, non-Seoul metropolitan regions excluding Honam, conservative and moderate voters, and supporters of the Saenuri Party and the Liberty Forward Party. In contrast, Professor Ahn Cheol-soo garners support from those in their 20s and 30s, the Honam, Chungcheong, and Seoul Metropolitan regions, progressive and moderate voters, and supporters of the Democratic United Party and undecided voters. Advisor Moon Jae-in, overlapping with Professor Ahn Cheol-soo's supporters, receives relatively high support from those in their 40s, progressive voters, and supporters of the Unified Progressive Party.

■ Firstly, regarding age, the elderly overwhelmingly favor Chairperson Park Geun-hye, while those aged 40 and below show overwhelming support for Ahn Cheol-soo and Moon Jae-in, indicating a generational divide. Ultimately, Chairperson Park Geun-hye's support base is concentrated among those in their 50s and 60s, and her support rate among those in their 40s remains around 30%, showing limitations in acquiring support from younger generations. Professor Ahn Cheol-soo and Chairman Moon Jae-in divide support among those aged 40 and below; while those in their 20s and 30s strongly support Professor Ahn Cheol-soo, those in their 40s maintain a balance between the two.

■ Secondly, in terms of region, Chairperson Park Geun-hye leads in all regions except Gwangju/Jeolla, showing particular strength again in Daejeon/Chungcheong and Gangwon/Jeju (higher than the combined support for Professor Ahn Cheol-soo and Advisor Moon Jae-in). Professor Ahn Cheol-soo ranks first in Gwangju/Jeolla and shows strength in Seoul and Incheon/Gyeonggi, while also receiving considerable support in Daejeon/Chungcheong. He also garners more support than Chairman Moon Jae-in in Busan/Ulsan/Gyeongnam and Daegu/Gyeongbuk.

■ Thirdly, significant differences are also observed based on ideological orientation. Chairperson Park Geun-hye receives the highest support from conservatives (57.5%) and moderates (34.4%), while Professor Ahn Cheol-soo receives the highest support from progressives (33.8%). Notably, the support for Park Geun-hye among conservatives and for Ahn Cheol-soo and Moon Jae-in among progressives is nearly equal, confirming that the direction of support from moderates will be crucial. Currently, Chairperson Park Geun-hye is ranked first among moderates, but her support rate is considerably lower than the combined support for Ahn Cheol-soo and Moon Jae-in, indicating a certain limitation.

■ Fourthly, examining support by party affiliation, Chairperson Park Geun-hye receives the highest support not only from Saenuri Party supporters (76.3%) but also from Liberty Forward Party supporters (41.7%), indicating a consolidation of support for conservative parties. Professor Ahn Cheol-soo ranks first among Democratic United Party supporters (41.1%), and candidate Moon Jae-in ranks first among Unified Progressive Party supporters (39.5%). Voters supporting minor parties or not expressing party affiliation show a preference for Professor Ahn Cheol-soo.

[Figure 2] Comparison of Characteristics of the Big 3's Support Bases (%)

(3) Presidential Competition in a Two-Way Race: Neck-and-Neck between Ahn Cheol-soo and Park Geun-hye

Park Geun-hye vs. Ahn Cheol-soo 46.3% vs. 49.7%, Park Geun-hye vs. Moon Jae-in 55.7% vs. 39.7%

■ In a one-on-one matchup, the race between Park Geun-hye and Ahn Cheol-soo is neck-and-neck with Ahn Cheol-soo holding a slight lead, while in a matchup between Park Geun-hye and Moon Jae-in, Chairperson Park Geun-hye holds a near-absolute advantage.

■ In the one-on-one contest between Park Geun-hye and Ahn Cheol-soo, Professor Ahn Cheol-soo leads with 49.7% support compared to Chairperson Park Geun-hye's 46.3%, a difference within the margin of error of 3.4%. Despite the Saenuri Party's victory in the general election and the strengthening trend of Park Geun-hye's leadership, she remains in a neck-and-neck race with Professor Ahn Cheol-soo in a one-on-one scenario.

■ In contrast, in the matchup between Park Geun-hye and Moon Jae-in, Chairperson Park Geun-hye leads significantly with 55.7% support, a 16.0% advantage over Advisor Moon Jae-in's 39.7%.

[Figure 3] Competitiveness of the Big 3 in a Two-Way Race (%)

Presidential Candidate Ideological Orientation: Park Geun-hye is Strongly Conservative (7.1), Ahn Cheol-soo is Slightly Progressive (4.3)

Major Party Ideological Orientation: Saenuri Party is Strongly Conservative (7.2), Democratic United Party is Slightly Progressive (4.4)

■ A comparison of the support bases of Chairperson Park Geun-hye and Professor Ahn Cheol-soo, who are in a neck-and-neck race, was conducted. The analysis revealed characteristics almost identical to those observed in the multi-candidate race scenario.

[Figure 4] Comparison of Support Bases of Park Geun-hye and Ahn Cheol-soo (%)

■ Firstly, based on age, Chairperson Park Geun-hye and Professor Ahn Cheol-soo showed opposing support structures. That is, the older the age group, the more they support Chairperson Park Geun-hye, and the younger the age group, the more they support Professor Ahn Cheol-soo, demonstrating a clear generational divide. Among the middle-aged group of 40s, Professor Ahn Cheol-soo's support rate is significantly higher. Given this age-based support, it is important to observe how generational mobilization effects materialize in the future.

■ Secondly, regional differences show that Chairperson Park Geun-hye holds an advantage in traditional support regions such as Yeongnam and Gangwon/Jeju, while Professor Ahn Cheol-soo holds a relative advantage in Honam and the Seoul Metropolitan Area. However, in the Chungcheong region, the support is balanced within the margin of error, implying that the choice of voters in the Chungcheong region could be a decisive factor, assuming the current regional dynamics.

■ Thirdly, the ideological divide between conservatives and progressives has become even more pronounced. Conservatives overwhelmingly support Chairperson Park Geun-hye, while progressives overwhelmingly support Professor Ahn Cheol-soo. Moderate voters show higher support for Professor Ahn Cheol-soo than for Chairperson Park Geun-hye. This indicates that the support of moderate voters will be a crucial factor.

■ Fourthly, in terms of party affiliation, the confrontation between support for conservative parties and support for progressive parties is being reproduced. Supporters of the Saenuri Party and the Liberty Forward Party overwhelmingly support Chairperson Park Geun-hye, while supporters of the Democratic United Party and the Unified Progressive Party overwhelmingly support Professor Ahn Cheol-soo. Amidst this confrontational structure, supporters of minor parties and unaffiliated voters show higher support for Professor Ahn Cheol-soo. These results are likely due to a backlash against conservative parties and the conservative image associated with Chairperson Park Geun-hye.

■ Indeed, the perception of ideological orientation for parties and politicians in this survey shows that the Saenuri Party is evaluated as more strongly conservative (7.2 points) than the Liberty Forward Party (5.7 points), the Democratic United Party as moderately progressive (4.4 points), and the Unified Progressive Party as progressive (3.4 points). Chairperson Park Geun-hye is evaluated as strongly conservative (7.1), while Professor Ahn Cheol-soo (4.3) and Advisor Moon Jae-in (4.1) are evaluated as moderately progressive. Notably, Chairperson Park Geun-hye's ideological coordinates align almost perfectly with the Saenuri Party, and Professor Ahn Cheol-soo's ideological coordinates are evaluated as being on the same line as the Democratic United Party.

[Figure 5] Ideological Orientation of Major Parties and Politicians (Points)

(4) Competitiveness of the Big 3 Through Politician Preference

Park Geun-hye and Ahn Cheol-soo are neck-and-neck in preference as well

■ Separate from their support as presidential candidates, the public's preference for influential candidates as politicians was analyzed. Preference was measured on a scale of 0 (strongly dislike) to 10 (strongly like), with 5 being neutral.

■ Based on the average preference score, Professor Ahn Cheol-soo scored 6.31, Chairperson Park Geun-hye scored 6.28, and Advisor Moon Jae-in scored 5.60. This indicates that Professor Ahn Cheol-soo and Chairperson Park Geun-hye have similar preference ratings, while Advisor Moon Jae-in's preference rating is relatively lower.

■ Based on the percentage of positive responses ('like'), Chairperson Park Geun-hye received 61.6%, slightly ahead of Professor Ahn Cheol-soo's 60.4%, while Advisor Moon Jae-in lagged with 46.3%. Negative responses ('dislike') were similar for Advisor Moon Jae-in (22.9%) and Chairperson Park Geun-hye (21.5%), whereas Professor Ahn Cheol-soo had the lowest negative response rate at 18.0%. Overall, while Chairperson Park Geun-hye and Professor Ahn Cheol-soo are at similar levels in politician preference, the negative perception of Chairperson Park Geun-hye is relatively stronger than that of Professor Ahn Cheol-soo.

[Figure 6] Preference for the Big 3 as Politicians (%)

■ Examining the differences in politician preference by respondent characteristics, it was found that they generally overlapped with presidential candidate support attitudes. Firstly, by age, Chairperson Park Geun-hye was most preferred by those aged 60 and over and in their 50s, with positive response rates exceeding 50% for all age groups under 40. Professor Ahn Cheol-soo was most preferred by those aged 20 to 40, with preference levels highest among those in their 30s, followed by their 20s and 40s. Advisor Moon Jae-in received positive evaluations exceeding 50% across all age groups from 20 to 40.

■ Secondly, by region, Chairperson Park Geun-hye received overwhelming positive ratings in Daegu/Gyeongbuk, Busan/Ulsan/Gyeongnam, and Gangwon/Jeju. Professor Ahn Cheol-soo's ratings were highest in Gwangju/Jeolla and Seoul, and he also received over 50% positive evaluations in the Yeongnam region. In Incheon/Gyeonggi and Daejeon/Chungcheong, the preference for Chairperson Park Geun-hye and Professor Ahn Cheol-soo was nearly equal. Advisor Moon Jae-in's positive evaluations exceeded 50% only in Seoul and Gwangju/Jeolla, showing a slight disadvantage in politician preference as well.

■ Third, by ideological tendency, among progressives, 76.1% showed a positive evaluation of Professor Ahn Cheol-soo and 65.6% for advisor Moon Jae-in, while the positive rate for Chairperson Park Geun-hye was only 45.4%. Among moderates, the order was Professor Ahn Cheol-soo > Chairperson Park Geun-hye > Director Moon Jae-in, with the positive rate for Director Moon Jae-in being only 45.0%. Among conservatives, 78.3% showed a positive evaluation of Chairperson Park Geun-hye, while only 46.1% responded positively to Professor Ahn Cheol-soo and 34.2% to Director Moon Jae-in.

■ By supporting party, 91.2% of Saenuri Party supporters positively evaluated Chairperson Park Geun-hye, while 79.5% of Democratic United Party supporters positively evaluated Professor Ahn Cheol-soo and 68.1% evaluated advisor Moon Jae-in positively. Among supporters of the Liberty Forward Party, 74.4% positively evaluated Chairperson Park Geun-hye, and the positive evaluation for Professor Ahn Cheol-soo was only 57.0%. For supporters of the Unified Progressive Party, advisor Moon Jae-in received 79.7% and Professor Ahn Cheol-soo received 77.5%, indicating a slightly stronger preference for Director Moon Jae-in. Among independents, Professor Ahn Cheol-soo received 66.5%, Chairperson Park Geun-hye received 49.7%, and advisor Moon Jae-in received 46.0%, showing the highest preference for Professor Ahn Cheol-soo.

[Figure 7] Differences in Political Figure Preference by Respondent Attributes (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

2. Evaluation of Past Presidents and Perception of National Tasks

(1) Evaluation of Past Presidents

President Roh Moo-hyun Likability 67.4% President Park Chung-hee Likability 65.5%

■ Considering the re-emergence of the "Park Geun-hye momentum" as the ruling party's strongest presidential candidate since the general election, and the trend of the pro-Roh Moo-hyun group solidifying its mainstream status in the opposition camp, we compared the likability of President Park Chung-hee and President Roh Moo-hyun among past presidents.

■ Interestingly, the public's likability for President Park Chung-hee and President Roh Moo-hyun was found to be at almost the same level. Specifically, likability for President Park Chung-hee was 65.5% and dislikability was 33.4%, while likability for President Roh Moo-hyun was 67.4% and dislikability was 32.1%.

[Figure 8] Comparison of Likability for President Park Chung-hee and President Roh Moo-hyun (%)

■ Cross-analysis of the response results regarding the likability of President Park Chung-hee and President Roh Moo-hyun revealed complex patterns of overlap and confrontation between the two. Specifically, there was a group preferring Park Chung-hee (28.0%) who liked President Park Chung-hee but rejected President Roh Moo-hyun, and conversely, a group preferring Roh Moo-hyun (26.7%) who felt favorably towards President Roh Moo-hyun but rejected President Park Chung-hee. These two groups were of similar size and in confrontation, while the group expressing favor towards both President Park Chung-hee and President Roh Moo-hyun was the largest at 38.5%. On the other hand, the group rejecting both was only 5.3%.

[Table 1] Comparison of Likability for President Park Chung-hee and President Roh Moo-hyun (%)

■ Using a 10-point scale, we examined the relationship between attitudes towards President Park Chung-hee and President Roh Moo-hyun and the likability of presidential candidates (average value).

■ A review of the evaluation of presidential candidates by group, based on differences in likability for President Park Chung-hee, showed that as likability for President Park Chung-hee increased, so did likability for Chairperson Park Geun-hye, while likability for Professor Ahn Cheol-soo and advisor Moon Jae-in decreased. Furthermore, likability for President Roh Moo-hyun showed an inverse relationship, indicating a close correlation between attitudes towards past presidents and preferences for current presidential candidates.

[Figure 9] Relationship between Likability for President Park Chung-hee and President Roh Moo-hyun and Likability for the Big 3 Candidates (Points)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

The President who performed best among past presidents is Park Chung-hee 51.1%

President Lee Myung-bak 2.0%

■ Meanwhile, this survey investigated who was the best-performing president among past Korean presidents. The analysis results showed President Park Chung-hee in an overwhelming first place, followed by President Kim Dae-jung and President Roh Moo-hyun. President Chun Doo-hwan and President Lee Myung-bak received similar evaluations at around 2%, while the worst evaluations were given to Roh Tae-woo, Kim Young-sam, and Syngman Rhee, in that order.

[Figure 10] Evaluation of Past Presidents (%)

(2) National Tasks for the Next Government and Problem-Solving Capabilities of Political Parties

Key Tasks for the Next Government: Alleviating Economic Polarization and Economic Growth, in that order

Problem-solving ability, economic polarization for the Democratic United Party, economic growth for the Saenuri Party

■ The question, "What do you think should be the top priority national task for the next government?" revealed that alleviating economic polarization ranked highest, followed by economic growth as the second priority task. Subsequently, improving quality of life, political reform, national integration, inter-Korean relations improvement, strengthening national security, education reform, and enhancing international competitiveness followed in that order.

■ How the issues of resolving polarization, ranked as the top priority, and economic growth, which have conflicting characteristics, are handled will be a major focus in the upcoming presidential election campaign.

■ Meanwhile, perceptions of political parties' problem-solving capabilities for these national tasks show some differences depending on the issue. Regarding economic polarization, the Democratic United Party was evaluated as having the capability to resolve it, while the Saenuri Party was evaluated as having the capability for economic growth. Issues such as national integration, strengthening national security, and enhancing international competitiveness were all assessed as strengths of the Saenuri Party, whereas the Democratic United Party's capabilities were highly evaluated for improving inter-Korean relations. Evaluations of problem-solving capabilities for improving quality of life, political reform, and education reform were perceived as similar for both parties. Notably, the lack of difference in evaluation between the Saenuri Party and the Democratic United Party on various reform tasks is also noteworthy.

[Figure 11] Priority of National Tasks for the Next Government and Parties' Problem-Solving Capabilities (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063