1. What’s happening in Germany and why does it matter to us?

This Sunday, Germany will hold the second most important elections worldwide in the past six months. Trends and outcomes in the campaign will shape how the world - and Lithuania - live over the next five years. The new government will face decisions affecting not only Germany but the entire Europe: support for Ukraine, the future of NATO (or its potential replacement by another European organization), responses to impending US tariffs, and unilateral US policies. Economic issues are also critical - will the new government break taboos and stimulate the economy with borrowed funds, and what will be the future of green energy?

In Lithuania, Fausta writes about these developments tirelessly (follow her if you haven’t yet; also check Audrius Guzaitis, who provides excellent analyses on China). It’s not only about which party wins. During this unprecedented political reshuffle, party platforms and manifestos have become less relevant - it’s easier to predict what politicians will do in office from statements and moods expressed by party leaders and supporters rather than formal documents.

Repsense has been tracking disinformation trends in Germany for some time, and over the past few weeks we, together with local partners, leveraged Adler to monitor the political system. Our study had two main objectives:

Assess the dominant parties in the campaign’s final stretch and speculate on election outcomes (US election research has shown a link between social and traditional media activity and voter turnout and last-minute decision-making, while polls sometimes fail);
Evaluate the major themes and recurring narratives during the campaign. Although the study is limited to digital media and available social networks (TV and podcasts are not included), we processed nearly 400,000 articles and social media posts.

2. Who is running and what do the studies show?

CDU/CSU “Union” — led by lawyer and businessman Friedrich Merz, who has shifted the party from Merkel-era center-left to center-right;
AfD — anti-immigration, Russophile, alt-right party (including a few neo-Nazis among its members), led by financier Alice Weidel and supported by Elon Musk and JD Vance;
SPD — traditional social democrats losing popularity, led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz;
Greens — postmodern center-liberals, led by writer and Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck;
FDP — economic liberals and fiscal conservatives, led by Christian Lindner, the reserve lieutenant who contributed to the collapse of Olaf Scholz’s previous government;
Die Linke — radical leftists from former East German communists, led by journalist Ines Schwerdtner and biologist Jan van Aken;
BSW (Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance) — anti-immigration left-populist party, led by the charismatic (and pro-Russian) Sahra Wagenknecht after leaving Die Linke.

Below is a summary of the latest ratings from Politico.

Since the beginning of the year, the Union (CDU/CSU) has been leading, with AfD trailing at a respectful distance. However, AfD’s ratings have risen significantly since the start of the campaign. The SPD, led by the unpopular Scholz, suffers from low ratings, while the campaign has allowed the Greens to recover slightly after the surprises of the previous election.

If the polls are accurate (hence all the current concern), the real drama is at the bottom of the table. Youth reactions to Trump and AfD appear to have revived the nearly dormant Die Linke - which recently won mock youth votes, with the Greens coming in second. Meanwhile, the prominent Sahra Wagenknecht is losing support as anti-immigrant voters consolidate around AfD. FDP hovers around the 5% threshold.

The drama at the lower end of the table has implications for coalition building. If smaller parties fail to enter parliament, the most likely outcome is a two-party coalition between the Union and the Greens. Such a government would be pro-business, decisive, and favorable on Ukraine and defense issues (the Greens are enthusiastic supporters, and while Merz speaks cautiously about aid, he certainly has no pro-Russian sympathies). If more parties enter parliament, a third partner may be needed - likely the reluctant FDP, which has resisted borrowing and frustrated others - or, more probably, a grand coalition of the Union, Greens, and SPD, which would move more slowly.

3. Media coverage of the campaign finish in numbers

Germany is a country of heavy media consumption. Despite the growing popularity of social media, traditional outlets still command trust and audience, meaning both information volumes and campaign efforts are massive.

To make sense of this enormous flow of information quickly - essentially understanding what’s happening in an hour - is precisely the kind of task Repsense’s Adler is built for.

First, some quantitative insights, in a style familiar to old-school analysts: we measure mentions and reach, focusing on messages where parties (or their five main leaders) are discussed as the primary actors - what we call “key figures” in our terminology.

What do these data show?

The campaign is dominated by the three main parties, which are effectively absorbing all the oxygen in the communication space. Attention to left-wing parties is particularly lacking.

When measured by audience reach, the positions of the three major parties level out, suggesting that each has a similar impact in terms of exposure.

This is bad news for the ruling SPD. Like all incumbents, they have an inherent advantage in election communication - posts and administrative resources can add 5–10 percentage points to their mentions. This implies that their actual communication intensity is quite low. By comparison, in Lithuania’s 2024 elections, the conservatives dominated massively over all competitors.

What do these numbers show?

Here the picture gets much more interesting. In the media, the election campaign revolves around the Union leader and likely candidate, Friedrich Merz, who dominates both in terms of key mentions and audience reach.

By mentions alone (likely aided by administrative advantages), the current chancellor, Olaf Scholz, still looks competitive. However, by audience reach, he falls significantly behind.

The SPD is searching for new faces - the top ten also includes familiar figures, such as Ukraine supporter and Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and the party co-leader Lars Klingbeil. If the election results follow the polls, it seems likely that Olaf Scholz will no longer lead the party.

We also see that the AFD generates a very high number of mentions overall, but their leader Alice Weidel ranks only fourth. Other party figures receive very few mentions. This appears to be a classic case of political consolidation: the party speaks less about itself and more about its opponents.

An interesting third-place figure is the almost certain coalition partner for Merz, the Green leader Robert Habeck, who exceeds his party’s overall results and, in terms of audience reach, is very close to Merz. This cannot be explained solely by media exposure - he must be a genuinely newsworthy, charismatic leader (similar to how Kasčiūnas in Lithuania managed to maintain visibility until the very end of the campaign).

Sahra Wagenknecht ranks higher than her party’s name would suggest, which is not surprising. On the downside, FDP leader Christian Lindner and Die Linke figure Jan van Aken struggle to break into the media. None of these politicians were invited to national debates (Sahra even attempted legal action to secure an invitation).

4. So, what are these elections really about?

This is where Adler starts telling the story. One could, of course, present a word cloud of the most frequently mentioned terms - but that alone wouldn’t make the picture any clearer. Once you filter out all the noise, the dominant narratives and key themes become unmistakably clear.

The charts are very clear - and quite cynical. The central issue in the German elections is illegal migration. Even a stagnating economy and the threat from Russia pale in comparison to debates over what to do with (il)legal migrants. Viewed in this light, the historic voting alignment between CDU/CSU and AFD makes more sense - election leaders understand they cannot ignore the issue that voters care about most if they want to win. This is before even considering topics like Ukraine and climate change (which are usually mentioned together with energy policy).

Yes, immigration is AFD’s main card - their “black horse.” Mentions of the party - whether supportive, critical, or hostile - far outpace those of CDU/CSU and SPD, and in terms of audience reach, they completely dominate (of course, TV and radio amplify these already heavily conservative numbers many times over).

Even FDP and Sahra Wagenknecht, who lag in the polls, play a leading role on this issue, but they are completely overshadowed by AFD. The Greens and the Left barely even speak about immigration.

However, the Greens are most active on the traditional “winning” election topic — the economy. SPD and FDP liberals are also focused here. The economy is not AFD’s strength, and even the conservatives are surprisingly passive on this front.

Interestingly, in Germany, discussion of Ukraine is dominated by SPD, due both to administrative responsibility for commenting on U.S. statements and to the personal profile of Boris Pistorius. CDU comes second, FDP (opponents of aid) third, while others mostly try not to interfere. This is what Germany’s leadership looks like at the moment.

Back in January, support for Ukraine was barely discussed. But the Munich Security Conference, statements by U.S. Vice President JD Vance, and other events (not yet including reactions to Trump’s latest comments) pushed Ukraine to the top of the agenda.

Can the entire election campaign finale in the media be captured in a single visualization? Yes - counting only significant mentions of parties and their key members:

Vertical axis - Communication prominence, a composite of context, narratives, role, quality, and media reputation;
Horizontal axis - Reached audience;
Bubble size - Number of mentions.

What does this chart tell us? I’ve seen many like this - both in business and politics - so I can comment on this chart as well as what we already know from earlier data.

Election discussions revolve around AFD, while the other two leading parties act as their alternatives, with CDU looking stronger. However, it’s clear that the majority of AFD’s visibility is negative. Without the massive attacks, Alice Weidel’s party would exist somewhere near the Greens. Does it work? Ask Remigijus Žemaitaitis (whose party, at the start of the campaign, was in a similar position by visibility but lagged far behind in audience reach). You could also ask Donald Trump. On the other hand, this tactic also sets low voter ceilings.

In marketing terms, this is known as the “challenger” position. We don’t know exactly how many undecided voters there are in Germany, but the data suggest they will all be “drained out” to the very bottom. This is likely why BSW didn’t succeed - they tried to target similar voters in Eastern Germany, where the DDR past is still remembered.

FDP and the Greens are competing in the second tier. It’s very odd that FDP’s ratings are so low; it’s worth taking a closer look at what their communication content actually consists of - we’ll do that shortly.

The media does not pay much attention to BSW and Die Linke. BSW are somewhat more radical, but Die Linke has noticeably gained ground toward the end of the campaign.

5. And what are the real stories dominating the elections?

Here, Adler helps answer the question. By generating a digital “DNA” of the most important media stories, we can see what they are:

By party
By leaders
By narratives and how they spread across traditional and social media

There are many individual stories: debates, reactions to events, compromises (for example, Robert Habeck had to justify not copying his academic work). We can’t list all of them here, but let’s highlight a few so we can get a sense of the election landscape.

For example, as previously mentioned with FDP, on a randomly selected day, February 14, Adler found the five biggest stories looked like this:

279 Political Dynamics in Germany: FDP Leader Christian Lindner's Influence,
Coalition Possibilities and Strategic Moves

99 Perception of FDP's Position on Bureaucracy Reduction

60 European Concerns Over US Involvement in Ukraine Peace Negotiations

46 Social media activity of FDP politicians and supporters regarding party events and demands

36 FDP polling percentage distribution and its meaning for coalition considerations

First story – FDP’s election goal: avoid a “Black-Green” coalition between Merz and Habeck (focus on the economy). The third and fifth stories aren’t messages from FDP themselves, but discussions about FDP - various speculations about post-election Germany. However, the liberals also had some good news. The second most popular story of the day: a YouGov poll showed they are seen as reducing bureaucratic restrictions on business. Looking at other days, it’s clear that FDP is trying very actively to intervene in various topics, but only really succeeds in economics and coalition debates. Unsurprisingly, the party’s slogan is “Economy first.”

And the Ukraine topic? There are many stories, all tied to the upcoming elections. It’s hard to imagine how strongly pro-Ukrainian Olaf Scholz and the Green Party are perceived in Germany, and how strongly pro-Russian forces are pressuring Friedrich Merz. With Die Linke rising in the polls, Olaf Scholz could theoretically remain chancellor by forming a left coalition with BSW, Die Linke, and the Greens. However, during debates with Merz, he rejected this idea, arguing that those parties “would leave Ukraine alone,” making cooperation impossible.

The most important topic in recent days – Trump-initiated negotiations excluding Ukraine – has been criticized, either cautiously or aggressively, by most traditional party leaders: both the emotional Green Annalena Baerbock and the dry conservative Friedrich Merz. Meanwhile, AFD thrives, repeating Russian propaganda clichés and quoting (for some reason) Dmitry Medvedev, while BSW seems confused – cutting aid to Ukraine is a major part of their party image. Equally important are anti-American sentiments and criticism of US tech companies.

A few days ago, the anti-Ukraine camp widely shared statistics claiming that of 300,000 Ukrainian refugees in Germany, only about 27% are working, while the rest rely on generous public benefits (for comparison, in Lithuania, the same study claims 57% of Ukrainian refugees are working). The day before yesterday, a small network of regional online portals sensitively extended this story with a broader interview with a Ukrainian woman who returned to Kyiv, Ana, who said benefits in Germany are too generous and finding a job is difficult:
"If Germans fled to Ukraine, we would also want them to find work within three years."

AFD supporters use post-election Ukraine funding discussions to sow panic. The former Soviet-licensed newspaper Berliner Zeitung (now logically controlled by former Stasi agent Holger Friedrich) published a semi-objective article noting that one of the Green leaders, Annalena Baerbock, “slipped” and mentioned billions for Ukraine after the elections. FDP, SPD, the Greens, and the Union were all targeted in a Twitter campaign urging voters not to support pro-Ukraine parties.

In the context of recent statements by Donald Trump, AFD leader Alice Weidel, speaking about Ukraine, sounds almost reserved. She opposes sending German soldiers to the front lines (citing Russian resistance and Germany’s weak military), but supports UN troop deployment after the negotiations. Other party leaders are far less diplomatic. AFD’s honorary chairman Alexander Gauland explained: “The war is between Ukraine and Russia, not Germany and Russia: This is not our war.”

6. What do these data tell us about the elections? Can we predict the results?

No, we cannot. These are secondary data, reflecting different opinions expressed during the final stage of the campaign. However, they can help us interpret the polls. Combined with more precise studies (e.g., what matters to undecided voters, which media they use, voter turnout), we can even interpret some actions and their effects.

A few observations:

The election is less a referendum on the governing coalition (as in Lithuania) and more a choice between traditional parties and AFD. This binary situation benefits AFD, helping activate and consolidate its supporters (more on this in the social media review).
This also benefits Friedrich Merz, undoubtedly a star of the campaign, who is also a relatively fresh face in top-level politics.
The election has a core theme: immigration and migrants. Everything else is peripheral or linked to this issue.
Die Linke surged simultaneously. Their rise in polls and popularity among youth in U18 elections drew attention.
FDP, hovering near the parliamentary threshold, is widely visible, with a distinct economic message. Whether they are distinct enough to avoid being overshadowed by Merz’s popular Union is unclear. Their leader doesn’t seem very strong.
BSW is in a similar position – strong face, weak message, squeezed between rising Die Linke, Trump/Musk-influenced AFD, and the general election narrative.
Scholz is the last “struggling deer,” attacked from all sides: extreme left, Merz’s CDU, and the surprisingly strong Greens. I didn’t expect it, but after spending half a day with the stories, I even felt a bit sorry for him.

But this is only traditional media! What about other countries’ elections and influential social networks? Is Musk’s footprint visible? A very good question. Some unpleasant surprises await there, but we’ll cover them tomorrow.

Germany’s Election Campaign Wrap-Up: Numbers and Narratives