German Elections & Politics

[palandio]

Ah, then I'm sorry for not having looked that up by myself.

It seems that Infratest dimap did a detailed analysis (see the ZEIT link) of vote flows and then ARD calculated net vote flows. In my view net vote flows can be quite problematic because they can pretend a much more static situation than what is really the case.

In fact Berlin shows a very flexible electorate. For example Berlin sees many people moving in and moving out, more than most other Bundesländer. Voters that moved in and voters that moved out voted quite differently (in 2016 and 2011 respectively), with in-moving voters voting to the left of the Berlin average.

But also when you take into account only voters that were registered to vote in Berlin in both 2011 and 2016, there is an interesting observation: The CDU lost heavily in 2016, but surprisingly ca. one third of its 2016 voters that had already been registered in 2011 had not voted CDU back then. And for other parties like SPD, Greens and Linke the numbers are even higher. On the other hand the Linke despite its overall gains lost ca. one third of its 2011 voters that were still registered in 2016.

So overall there are big voter exchanges, but the net flow picture tends to cancel out many of them.

[palandio]

I just saw that Sibboleth quoted Lewis' very good answer from seven years ago, so mine is maybe obsolete to some degree, but I'll post it nevertheless because it also includes something on the Green strongholds of East Berlin.

As far as I know, it has not been mentioned yet, but yes, there is a story behind Mitte 2 and Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg 4.

During WW2 large parts of the city center and adjacent quarters were destroyed. After the war during DDR times the areas around Alexanderplatz and Karl-Marx-Allee (then Stalinallee) were rebuilt with highrise Plattenbauten of a comparably high standard. Due to the function of East Berlin as Berlin's capital this area became one of the main residential areas for people employed at the overgrown central government and other institutions.
This type of quarter is demographically dominant in Mitte 2, Friedrichshain-Kr. 4 and parts of Lichtenberg.

In other parts of the Eastern city center the densely-built Wilhelminian housing survived the war. During DDR most of these quarters fell into decay, remained unrefurbished and suffered from population losses. Population drain culminated directly after the fall of the wall, when its residents were finally free to go where they wanted. But the abundance of cheap housing soon attracted a vibrant alternative scene (including house squatters). Within 25 years a rapid gentrification process took place and today the quarter of Prenzlauer Berg is known all over Germany (maybe unfairly) for its "Bionade-Bourgeoisie".
This type of quarter is demographically dominant in Pankow 6, Pankow 8, Friedrichshain-Kr. 5 and Mitte 1.

[palandio]

Steinmeier is an interesting case of "soft popularity". While having high approval ratings all the time, he led the SPD into its worst electoral defeat since WW2 in 2009 (only 23%, down from 34.2% in 2005, in absolute numbers 9.99 millions, down from 16.19 millions). Of course one might argue that coming out from a Grand coalition didn't certainly help and that the SPD had been polling below its 2005 result for quite a time, but even then 23% was really bad.

[palandio]

Merkel's declaration to run again hasn't really changed that much, but at the same time it has strengthened my feeling that we're somehow stuck in a political deadlock that has already damaged our political system and that will continue to do so in the future.

Merkel will stay chancellor, with a severely weakened CDU/CSU still coming in first. The SPD ist too weak and has few options to form a government excluding CDU/CSU. The most likely option is a renewed grand coalition. Politically I might prefer a grand coalition over every option that includes the Greens (at the moment), but at the same time there are few scenarios except a grand coalition and the unrealistic and scary CDU/CSU/FDP/AfD that wouldn't involve the Greens. But an eternal grand coalition (probably depending on partial Green support in the Federal Council) would leave the AfD as the main option to express opposition. During the rise of the FPÖ in Austria many thought it couldn't get over 15%, then over 20%, then over 30%, and look where they are today. So hopefully next year either CDU/CSU or SPD will go into opposition. Just for the sake of the health of our democracy.

Add to this the perceived consensus of the majority of left-leaning journalists and intellectuals to defend Merkel's decisions (which the CDU is already rolling back quietly). This doesn't help the CDU (and also to some degree the SPD). Merkel is increasingly seen as a center-left politician, which she never was and still not is. The media and the cultural elites have lost influence, but they're to a large degree not aware of it. And the reactionaries are posing as the resistance against the allegedly overwhelming powers. You cannot say this, you cannot say that, etc., but in reality you can say almost everything. If you're against it, you're right-wing. How sad.

And the next trend is already arriving from America, because we have to imitate every newest crazy sheet: Identity politics. Including calling people names and then wondering why they wouldn't vote for you. We saw how well that went in America. Well, at least in Germany SPD, Greens and Left are three parties and maybe the SPD can be spared some of this, but I fear it won't.

This has become quite a rant, I'm sorry.

[palandio]

CDU and CSU need to split... then the CSU can merge with the AfD and the CDU can merge with the SPD, and the Left can become the new major left-wing party.

I fear that this would be a total nightmare. Some huge centrist amalgam that just cannot be voted out. But because people would grow tired at some point, it would lose its majority and have to go into a coalition with either the CSU/AfD or the New Left. And if the coalition is Center-New Left, then prepare for the CSU/AfD to rise to 35%, 40%, etc. Absolutely horrible.

[palandio]

Wait ... what ?

TV-judge Alexander Hold is from the Free Voters ?

You learn something new every day ...

So what is a TV-judge actually ?

There was a court show called "Richter Alexander Hold" (i.e. Judge Alexander Hold) on the private TV network Sat. 1, starring the same A. Hold that is now the candidate for the Free Voters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_show

[palandio]

Die Linke is a complex political subject that can't just be shifted around through the political issues.

There are deep cleavages between ex-PDS and ex-WASG, east and west, pragmatists and hardliners (with a strong correlation between these).

On the immigration issue on the other hand, the permissive stance is absolutely majoritarian. The only outspoken critic is Sahra Wagenknecht (ex-PDS ultra-hardliner). The rest of the party is mostly quite idealistic about this issue and couldn't easily digest a change of direction.

Finally the party's voter demographics are changing. Die Linke is growing among younger, urban alternative demographics. Changing its stance on immigration might hurt the party's chances with these new voters and the risk is that long-time eastern voters might not necessarily come back.

A party left of center that is more restrictive on immigration would be interesting in the sense that it would be entertaining to watch how things turn out. But it's unlikely to happen. And if it happens, Sarrazin would certainly not be a credibly left-wing figure to play a role in it. And Wagenknecht and Palmer will stay with the Left and the Greens respectively.

[palandio]

Funny actually that through the sheer existence of the AfD the AfD voters get either the same again or the same with more feminism and gay rights. 

The point could be made that the sheer existence of the AfD and its electoral results have shifted the political discourse on immigration in Germany towards the right much more than most would have immagined two years ago.
Also, while I would not exclude a possible majority for black-green, at the moment the numbers are just not there and I think that speculation about black-green before the election could hurt both CDU/CSU and Greens. And again the sheer existence of the AfD might make black-green less palatable to the CDU/CSU than a renewed grand coalition, because I assume that the (federal) Greens are more toxic for the typical CDU/CSU-AfD swing voter than the SPD.

[palandio]

BTW...is this pollster any good? Have they polled German politics in the past?

They have only entered the field recently. According to their homepage they were second-best in the recent Berlin election which seems to be the one and only election where they have been tested so far.

Their approach ist quite interesting. The  raw data come from SpiegelOnline users who register, fill out some demographic questions and so on. And then all of these data get weighted with some secret sauce. So no traditional pollster who tries to get a representative sample of persons, but an innovative method that claims to work even with heavily non-representative raw data.

[palandio]

But that's probably the future of the polling industry. Which means that polling failures will become increasingly frequent, needless to say.

Traditional polling is facing strong challenges (cell-phone only, 95% non-responding, etc.), but at least in Germany they're still doing surprisingly well, maybe better than ever. (And US national polling was not that bad either, only Mid-Western polling was far off.) This proves that phone-interview based polling still is the gold standard.

Nonetheless I see methodological innovations as a positive, at least on an experimental level. Every pollster depends on secret sause and improving it is a must. Adjusting your methodology should lead to better results, not to more increasingly frequent polling failure. And if polling failures increase, then maybe it is because the environment has become more difficult and polling methodology hasn't kept pace.

The only problem is that the heavy use of secret sauce to add to your raw data is often difficult to distinguish from educated guessing (with the risk of herding effects) or - even worse - agenda-driven number magic (I'm looking at you, Forsa, but not only.) I understand your unease with renouncing representative samples. But I think we should at least give it a try, on the experimental level.

[palandio]

AfD logic at work: 70% support my policies, but are voting for evil left-wing anti-Germans. Makes sense.

Take it this way: 70% may hold a wide range of more or less critical opinions regarding 2015's immigration politics (I am one of them). But that doesn't mean that they support the AfD (I mean most of them don't even vote AfD...). And that's a good thing and the German progressives should be glad instead of telling people: "Then f**ing vote AfD already. We don't even want to be voted by people like you. You're enabling the far-right. You're as bad as them."

[palandio]

It's good when there is a choice between parties with different positions and that includes many Greens being supportive of very refugee-friendly policies.

There's no point in changing your positions if you don't really mean it. The important question is what is the best strategy to move the political debate and actual politics in your direction. Sadly parts of the right (Trump, Brexiteers) seem to have mastered that better than the left.

[palandio]

This guy is a nut and deserved to be kicked out for his recent comments.

What's the sense of kicking a nut out from a packet of nuts?

Both the Petry wing and the Meuthen/Gauland wing have an entirely tactical approach regarding perceived extremism. See the case of the AfD Landtag member Wolfgang Gedeon from Baden-Württemberg, who is a Holocaust denying conspiracy theorist. In his case Meuthen wanted to kick him out (after some initial hesistance) and the Petry wing defended him. Now it's the other way round because Höcke is on Meuthen's and Gauland's side.

[palandio]

Ugh, yet another country where I don't feel comfortable supporting any party. Die Linke is out of the question because I'm not fond of the Stasi. The SPD is an increasingly pathetic party that no longer reflects its respectable traditions and rich history, something that really depresses me. The Greens? Nope. The love for Merkel and the CDU in the US sickens me.

At this point, Merkel returning as chancellor in a grand coalition seems like the least bad option but this is very untenable and supporters of a basic framework of political liberalism in Europe or Germany shouldn't be content with this menu of choices.

That.

On the short term "staying on course" might be the least risky option, on the long run it might increase the centrifugal forces. Policy-wise the grand coalition may be the best remaining realistic option, but for long-term political stability it's very unhealthy.

i have for years wished for a socially liberal, pro-welfare state, pro economy, scandinavian-like european system, which is economically liberal but middle-taxing, no race to the bottom, fitting social safety net, maybe even including a basic income....

i raged against merkel for years for her small-mindedness (for example regarding greece) and making germany into a stumbling block for history....but i learned to love her since the alternatives got WAAAAY out of hand and the ukraine crisis started a fight against liberalism in all of europe.

Sooner or later there will always be alternatives. If it isn't you, it's someone else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference being what? Why have two parties? Just for folkloristic reasons, like in Ireland? I understand that having a consensus on certain things in a society helps. But what when the society can't find a consensus on certain issues?

[palandio]

the Afd is filled with many old fdp and cdu voters.

to outbalance it, merkel has filled her party with former spd/green voters.

imho nowaday the spd electorate is closer to the afd than the average cdu voter.

While not completely wrong, this seems like an overstatement to me. I'm aware that the electorate has become more mobile, but particularly the CDU still has a comparably huge loyal base, a group much bigger than the former SPD/Green voters who now love Merkel and would actually vote CDU because of that. Sub-groups that move from one group to another can of course change averages in both groups, but how much depends highly on their size in relation to the groups.

[palandio]

I have the feeling that this sudden SPD surge might be not so much about Schulz, but a combination of several factors:

- Before Schulz entered the race, many SPD sympathizers were in a state of resignation. They thought that the SPD had no chance anyway. And because of this they grasp at every potential game-changer.
- People want to save what they perceive as a "normal" political landscape, with two major forces that are both solidly supporting our liberal and democratic system, but at the same time are different enough and can actually be voted out without resorting to fringe alternatives.
- And finally, don't underestimate Merkel fatigue.

You might of course ask why these factors didn't count when Gabriel was still the expected SPD candidate. Well, sometimes political sentiments to transform into electoral movements need a catalyzing event. And Gabriel had become to unpopular and to much associated with the SPD being junior in the grand coalition.

[palandio]

@ David: Voter statistics for recent federal elections by type of employment, union membership and confession:
https://www.bundestag.de/blob/272928/f5acde8f297f7dd8ce148d79a3de1b1b/kapitel_01_11_stimmabgabe_nach_beruf_und_konfession__zweitstimme_-pdf-data.pdf

[palandio]

Old Europe is right that this should be regarded as part of an internal power struggle more than everything else.

Both the Petry wing and the Meuthen/Gauland wing have an entirely tactical approach regarding perceived extremism. See the case of the AfD Landtag member Wolfgang Gedeon from Baden-Württemberg, who is a Holocaust denying conspiracy theorist. In his case Meuthen wanted to kick him out (after some initial hesistance) and the Petry wing defended him. Now it's the other way round because Höcke is on Meuthen's and Gauland's side.

It's quite likely that in the end noone can kick out noone from the AfD because of the continued stalemate between the Meuthen/Gauland wing and the Petry wing.

[palandio]

Gauland and others argue that there is no way the expulsion will be backed by the party's court of arbitration. Hence they voted against it. I personally think Höcke is a liability, but let's just once again make it clear that "monument of shame" didn't refer to the monument itself but to the acts behind it. The guy has a rather checkered past and I do think the party would be better off w/o him but ultimately this expulsion will fail because he will be able to make the case that I have just presented.

nice try.

Yeah, the problem with German media and probably media in general is that they like to cut out single words like memorial of shame or perpetrator people (remember the infamous Hohmann case). This of course helps the plaintiff, because for example Höcke would then say exactly what Beezer said, and it is a reasonable point to make. But if you read/hear the whole speech, you realize that what Höcke (and Hohmann in 2003) said, is far worse. Memorial-political 180 degree turn, anyone? Sadly stupid media loves the wrong sound-bites. (Btw Hohmann is now a member of the AfD, will probably run as a federal election candidate and also personally knows Höcke.)

[palandio]

Gauland and others argue that there is no way the expulsion will be backed by the party's court of arbitration. Hence they voted against it. I personally think Höcke is a liability, but let's just once again make it clear that "monument of shame" didn't refer to the monument itself but to the acts behind it. The guy has a rather checkered past and I do think the party would be better off w/o him but ultimately this expulsion will fail because he will be able to make the case that I have just presented.

Cool. What do you think of Sankt Pauli's banner about the Dresden bombings?

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway. I think that some on the far left need to seriously reconsider how to gain acceptance for their positions in the mainstream. And banners like the one from Sankt Pauli aren't helpful at all. Apart from that Borussia Dortmund has to pay a fine of 100.000 Euro for its fans displaying banners with "Slaughter the bulls" and "Burnout Ralle, go hang yourself". I'm actually not 100% sure about whether a fine would be good (in both the Dortmund and the Sankt Pauli case), because I value free speech quite highly, but wishing a violent death to someone else on a banner?! That's probably too much.

Meanwhile the younger you are the more likely you are to vote Green. The exact opposite is true for the CDU. The AfD is -strongest among people between 40 and 65.

This has always been the case though.

The archetypal Green voter is an urban woman between the ages of 18 and 30 with either an university degree or on the road to obtaining one. The archetypal AfD voter is an unemployed male without high school degree from East Germany who's between 40 and 60. The archetypal CDU voter is a male Catholic pensioner.

Actually the average social position of a party is almost never that low, also because at least in Germany turnout correlates with class.

And surprisingly the CDU has had more female than male support in all federal elections except 1980 and 2002. Female Catholic pensioners are the archetypal CDU voters. It's true.

[palandio]

And banners like the one from Sankt Pauli aren't helpful at all. Apart from that Borussia Dortmund has to pay a fine of 100.000 Euro for its fans displaying banners with "Slaughter the bulls" and "Burnout Ralle, go hang yourself". I'm actually not 100% sure about whether a fine would be good (in both the Dortmund and the Sankt Pauli case), because I value free speech quite highly, but wishing a violent death to someone else on a banner?! That's probably too much.

 
  
You aren't a football fan, are you? Banners like that have been absolutely normal as long as I'm visiting games. I'm a Hansa Rostock fan so my antipathy for St.Pauli should come as no surprise but attacking them for a tasteless joke? I remember one time they wrote a banner against us saying "Follow your leader - do it like Rieger!" (Jürgen Rieger was NPD chairman who died shortly before that) which we answered by throwing a sex doll off the stands followed by a "Hals und Beinbruch" banner in remembrance of a St.Pauli fan who almost died after falling of the stands in Aachen. That's football culture. It is dirty and sometimes dark. That never was a problem to anyone. Now the Red Bull snowflakes are here and cry about it and boom the whole media has to report about every damn banner. And hell, it is well documented that Dynamo Dresden has problems with Nazis among their Ultras. That's one of their banners against us: http://blog.zeit.de/stoerungsmelder/files/2011/04/dynamo_dresden.jpg  

I'm all for tasteless jokes and I'm a regular stadium goer myself. The problem is when you mean the tasteless jokes. Violence against "civilian" supporters of other teams is not acceptable. I don't like artificial advertisement products like RB Leipzig that much. But some hools from Dortmund, Dresden, etc. have gone way too far about their "support" for their clubs. There is a line between acceptable ultra/hool culture and organized rioting. Not everything that a minority of soccer fans does is normal.
You're right about the Sankt Pauli banner. I've come to the conclusion that it's not an incitement to violence because I mean, who of them has his own airforce to bomb other cities? ;-) It's just an antifa joke which was funny when I heard it first, but which has gotten old and stale over time.

[palandio]

    Do we have any data breaking down the electorate by whether they are public employees or not?  It would be interesting to see among the white collar electorate whether the CDU does much better among non-public employees and the Greens,Linke, SPD much better among public employees.

There are data for "Beamte", that is civil servants with a special status. Compared to the rest of the white collar electorate they tend to vote slightly more CDU and Greens, while the rest of the white collar electorate ("Angestellte") tends to vote slightly more SPD and Linke. But of course you need to take into account that in the recent past many new public employees have not been employed as "Beamte", except for some areas like police officers.

(Sibboleth is right: These are old-fashioned categories, not to be over-interpreted.)

@ David: Voter statistics for recent federal elections by type of employment, union membership and confession:
https://www.bundestag.de/blob/272928/f5acde8f297f7dd8ce148d79a3de1b1b/kapitel_01_11_stimmabgabe_nach_beruf_und_konfession__zweitstimme_-pdf-data.pdf

[palandio]

Ticket-splitting has also become close to irrelevant on the federal level due to the full compensation of overhang seats that was introduced before the 2013 federal election following a ruling from the constitutional court.

[palandio]

Discuss!

Very interesting graphic.

What should be noted is that it is from the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a political foundation (Stiftung) close to the SPD. Not too surprising that the SPD is positioned at the center of the political landscape. I think that the authors of said study are probably somewhere in the upper left quadrant, at least I get that feeling from reading their analysis on the website of the FES.

http://www.fes.de/de/strategy-debates-global/strategy-debates-germany/

When it comes to the shown spectrum itself I think that you always have to simplify somehow and that therefore two axes are probably a useful simplification capturing the most relevant divides. That being said I see certain problems particularly with the libertarian-authoritarian axis. First thing: "Libertarian vs. authoritarian" seems to be a bit of a misnomer, "societal progressism vs. societal conservatism" might be slightly more appropriate. What is evident particularly from the analysis on Sweden, that you can find on the FES website as well, is that the upmost space often stands on the theoretical foundation of poststructuralism. Traditional liberalism and civil libertarianism would be positioned more in the center. On the other hand what I call "Fortuynism", i.e. nationalism without extreme traditionalism, is becoming more and more a thing. Finally I see that being supportive or critical of the EU correlates quite well with the other factors, but the inclusion into the two-dimensional spectrum doesn't ask why someone is supportive or critical.

On the single parties:

Linke: The main cleavage in the past years has been between who wants complete opposition and who is more ready to comprise, hence on the left-center axis. On the voter level a cleavage on societal politics has been observable between 2009 (economic protest party, with many votes coming from societal "traditionalists") and 2013 (shift towards the urban alternative milieu). I expect this trend to continue. Regarding immigration politics it is true that Sahra Wagenknecht, one of the two leaders for the federal election, has been quite critical, but hers is clearly a minority view within her own party. In my eyes the majority of the Left's activist base seems quite progressive. Immigration politics, independently from what position you actually take, doesn't seem to be a winning issue for the Left.

SPD: Yes, the main strategy debate within the SPD is on the left-center axis (like... since ever), although until now much of this seems a bit hollow to me. The SPD has been sending signal of unease on the societal axis and it will be interesting to see if and in which direction that will eventually evolve. I will take a closer look at them going into the coming election.

Greens: The realos are dominating, but on the mid-level there are still some lefties. Coming to the "tyranny of virtue", terms like this are mostly used by the more centrist politicians against societal progressivism, i.e. some positions that are called "libertarian" by the FES are called "tyrannical" by conservative Greens. Differently from the shown graphic I also see some overlap between the leftmost segments of the Greens and the most emancipatory-progressive segments of the Left.

Union: The main forces that are trying to drag the opportunistic Merkel Union away from the center are to the right economically (Schäuble), socially (CSU) or on everything (large parts of the CDU base). I think that with Merkel the Union won't be able to squeeze the AfD against the wall and on the other hand a clear rightward shift might drive away voters in the triangle between CDU, SPD and Greens. It's quite likely that the Union might eventually take resort in an R2G scare campaign.

AfD: Currently the main cleavages within the party seem of personal nature to me. On the other hand there is a strong extreme-right current in the party (i.e. even more "authoritarian" than the mainstream of the party). Its figurehead Björn Höcke might be eventually excluded from the party, but that is not sure. Alexander Gauland made the "Boateng" remarks during a private conversation with two FAZ journalists, who then took them out of context. Apart from that Gauland's strategy is to drag the AfD even further into the national populist direction, explicitely trying to transverse the economic left-right spectrum and to attract disappointed traditionalist left-leaners. He's your pure hardcore traditionalist societal conservative authoritarian nationalist, the furthest you can go away from the multi-culturalist poststructuralist progressives without actually being a nazi.

FDP: They're now yellow, magenta and cyan. And yeah, they might endorse digital civil rights because the tax-avoiding dentist doesn't care and both internet-affine conservative protest voters and socially progressive voters might be attracted by it. Apart from that the important thing is that they don't really move on the issues that really matter, i.e. business.

[palandio]

lol at all the shipping for AfD and Greens to go down and down and down and finish below 5%. I'm quite sure that both will be safely over 5% in the federal election (and I'm not sympathizing with either of them).

The refugee crisis is a bit out of the news and people are aware that the AfD aren't competent in any way, so they are losing a bit of the swing vote. But at the same time it's difficult to see which issue could draw the AfD core vote away. And if they were to be drawn away, where would they go (Merkel? SPD?). Also the human-trafficking season has just begun on the Mediterranean route and this will eventually affect Germany, not only Italy. And most recent immigrants are still in Germany, they are visible and people see what they want to see in them.

The Greens on the other hand have their share of over 5% who identify as Greens, have been voting Green consistently in many elections, federal, regional, communal. (This part of the electorate is below 5% in most of the East though, and in some low-income areas of the West [North-Western Lower Saxony, Saar, Mosel, Western Palatinate, Eastern Bavaria, Emscher bassin, etc.].) These voters would leave the Greens only if they dropped a nuclear bomb, and even then I'm not sure.