In the online survey “2016 U.S. Presidential Election” (6 November 2016, N=156), most respondents followed the campaign only superficially: 54.14% said “weakly,” and another 10.19% “not at all.” Only 13.38% reported following it “very intensively,” suggesting that opinions were shaped more by media fragments than by detailed policy debate.
Despite low engagement, preferences were strongly lopsided. If they were U.S. voters, 51.59% say they would vote for Donald Trump, versus 12.10% for Hillary Clinton. Nearly a third fall outside a clear choice: 19.75% are undecided and 11.46% say they would not vote. “Third options” are marginal (Jill Stein 3.82%), which also reflects a perception of the race as a two-person duel.
Open-ended answers point to predominantly negative motivation. Trump is chosen “so Hillary doesn’t win,” as the “lesser evil,” or due to a belief that he would be “less warlike” and more willing to engage in dialogue with Russia. When the question shifts to the interests of the country respondents live in, Trump’s advantage grows further: 66.88% believe his victory would be best for “their” country, while Clinton gets 13.38%. Comments repeatedly reference 1999, attitudes toward “the Clintons,” and expectations that Trump would be less interventionist in foreign policy.
The survey also mirrors domestic political sentiment. In a hypothetical Serbian election, the largest blocks are the undecided (20.38%) and those who would not vote (18.47%), while votes are scattered across multiple options (e.g., Dosta je bilo 14.01%; SRS 8.92%; SNS 7.01%), with a high share choosing “something else” (16.56%). The overall picture is one of fragmentation and distance from parties rather than stable partisan identification.
Methodological note: this is an online, self-selected sample (N=156) and is not representative of Serbia’s population.