The economy does indeed seem to have been neglected in the election campaign. In the polls, economic problems are very high on the agenda – in recent weeks and months, they have often even been the most important problem in Germany. Especially in a general election, economic and social security is the focus of the majority of respondents. Other, dramatic events only have a short-term impact.

People are not necessarily worried about their jobs. The economic situation is also still comfortable compared to the past 20 to 30 years. But people are worried about their future.

It always helps the AfD when the issue of migration gets a lot of media attention. However, it should be the aim of the established democratic parties to categorise the act and its consequences. Anyone who throws all their energy into this issue, where little can be improved in the short term, is doing the AfD's business. The party is noticed.

The political barometer has shown that the majority of CDU supporters believe the assurances of their party chairman Friedrich Merz that there will be no cooperation between the AfD and CDU. It would only be a problem if the expectations of their supporters were damaged. If the supporters of the SPD, the Greens and the Left believe the broken promises argument, it is good for their self-assurance, but it does not necessarily damage the Union.

There is a critical element – the 5% threshold with the FDP. This group of voters extends far into the Union's camp of supporters. If the small parties – the BSW and the Left Party (Die Linke) – make it into the Bundestag, the CDU/CSU and SPD might not be able to form a grand coalition: Tactical voting behaviour in favour of the FDP might be seen, because the FDP would be needed for a coalition.

The traditional cliché is that the socialists spend the money and the conservatives ensure economic growth. This becomes established if it is moderately demonstrated. served well. The outgoing government is perceived as left wing – and we have economic problems.

We have given ourselves a lot of leeway. For many years, strong economic growth meant that we were not forced to make cuts – and we fed additional needs from the surplus. That was very convenient.

The FDP often represents the interests of the economy. But quantitatively, the business representatives are a quantité négligeable in the electorate as a whole. The middle class – even if you count the self-employed – comprises a maximum of one in ten eligible voters. Nor are they all monolithically behind the FDP.

The average voter wants to be taken care of economically. The CDU/CSU is currently in danger of focussing too much on business associations such as the BDA or BDI, and too little on the economic needs of the general population.

The economic malaise is not only a matter of economic policy, but is also closely linked to social welfare, which the state is supposed to provide. CDU politicians such as Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel have always linked the two.

We are still a long way from a blood, sweat and tears campaign. We have not even begun to realise that we need to work more. This also applies to longer working lives. We will hardly achieve retirement at 67. We have a collective ostrich policy when it comes to securing pensions in the face of demographic change.

Trust in politicians' statements was permanently damaged by 2002 at the latest. During the Bundestag election campaign, Gerhard Schröder and Edmund Stoiber promised until 6 p.m. on Sunday that all problems in the social security systems could be easily solved. At 6.01 pm, they both told the voters what was in store for them.

Helmut Kohl was able to run a successful election campaign in 1994 during an economic recession by simply announcing an upturn. Back then, people still followed politicians and their announcements.

Yes, of course. But the employees of a medium-sized company won't vote FDP because of that. They have their own interests. How high is my salary? In times of inflation, which party fights for a link to collectively agreed wage increases? This has been very important in the past two years in particular.

The parties are picking up on it to demonstrate a degree of modernity. It's similar to campaigning on social media. It doesn't make much sense for the CDU, for example, to tie up a lot of capacity for this. It doesn't reach its clientele there. But it demonstrates that it is modern. It's similar with start-ups.

The mentality of nerds in startups is less homogeneous than the group of pharmacists, for example, which is traditionally well-reached out to by the FDP. These voters therefore do not play such a large role in quantitative terms. The cultural orientation is very liberal. Many of these people are young and modern, but they are not primarily involved in traditional politics.

The group of people over 60 who are not in work is becoming increasingly important in quantitative terms. As a result of demographic change, they are playing a more important role in the electorate. And they are more likely to turn out at the ballot box than some younger people.

A growth-enhancing economic policy does not necessarily have to be ordoliberal. But a lot has changed in the direction of growth-orientation. This is even noticeable among the Greens, whose programme was still decidedly anti-growth a few decades ago. Social policy is also easier to implement with more revenue.

With the debt brake, a mechanism was secretly found to cap social spending. There is no differentiation between consumption and investment. This is rigid, not market-orientated and not a sensible budgetary policy for a state.

Olaf Scholz has lost the trust of voters that his statements have anything to do with his actions. His image has been burnt. He doesn't get through to voters even when he says the right things. The same applies to Friedrich Merz with the sympathy deficit. He doesn't reach many people because they have been motivated on a sympathy dimension.

It is polemical exaggeration. Safeguarding pensions is fundamental to the stability of any state. People who have worked hard for years have a legitimate right to a pension. In addition, pensioners have strong consumer demand. An economy cannot afford for this group to go hungry. Billions could be cut from the social sector and other subsidies without having to cut back on the retirement of honest workers.

It should have been an important point, but you can't suddenly put on a completely different performance a few days before the election. It makes no sense for a Chancellor who is perceived by the majority as a failure to assure people that pensions are safe in front of black, red and gold flags, as Kohl did in 1994.

The election campaign had the target of making the SPD the strongest party. He therefore positioned himself as a soft centrist. But that target has been unrealistic for some time now. Olaf Scholz is the head of the worst-rated federal government since we started doing polls.

The SPD could have aimed to maximise votes in the left-wing political camp. Aiming for 20% or 22% would have meant not campaigning as the party which would provide the next Chancellor, and campaigning on decidedly left-wing positions.

They should have been emphasised more strongly: The Chancellor should have said, „The rich must be taxed more“ against a red rather than a black-red-gold background. The majority of the population is always in favour of a higher top tax rate.

Die Linke has understood this and systematically puts forward sharpened, left-wing socio-political demands. No one else in the party spectrum does this so resolutely. This enables it to mobilise its primary supporters on the left. This is why the left is now coming out of its slump again.

He has gambled away his credit through his political failure. That's why he can only be considered as a centrist option after Friedrich Merz and Robert Habeck. And the real centre, or the centre slightly off centre, is not reached by Merz, is not reached by Scholz and is most likely to be taken away by Habeck and the Greens at the end.

Habeck and the Greens are talking about the centre-left. But this is a little further to the left than the socially liberal centre. Middle-class people in working life who have nothing against foreigners, want orderly conditions, but also don't blame all the crime in the world on asylum seekers, don't really know who to vote for. The CDU/CSU does not offer them the full breadth of the CDU's programme.

There is a long tradition of the CSU taking much greater account of workers' interests. This is reflected in the broad support in Bavaria. The industry-orientated Franz-Josef Strauß was never as highly regarded in Bavaria as many other minister presidents there.

That's right. Economic issues are completely underrepresented. That was not the intention of the CDU/CSU's script. At the party conference at the beginning of February, the campaign focus was to be on the economy. That would have been strategically correct given the competence advantages and the critically perceived economic situation. But the candidate for chancellor disrupted the direction with the exaggerated asylum issue.

No, but it did take up two weeks of attention in which the CDU/CSU could have scored points in other areas against a government that was lying low.

That is completely irrelevant. Nobody understands it. With Bismarck, the conservatives invented the system of securing pensioners' livelihoods with state-guaranteed solidarity benefits. It would require a change in financial culture for private individuals to finance a larger proportion of retirement income through investment income. I also doubt that enough people are prepared to make this savings contribution, especially in the current climate. They are more likely to be diffusely hoping that the state will save them in the end in terms of social policy.

The young will not organise themselves to take something away from the old. It's far too complicated to calculate over decades. If a share-based pension is introduced, no one starting saving at the age of 25 has expectations of what they will receive.

We have far fewer social conflict fronts than 30 to 40 years ago. The major conflict between capital and labour has greatly diminished. Strikes have become a kind of ritual hobby. In terms of habitual and cultural understanding, the conflict between old and young is also much less today. Perhaps we will see an even more important cultural conflict with digitalisation. That is not yet clear. But there are people with an aversion to the modernity of digitalisation. Others are moving far too slowly.

Söder has recognised one of the Union's Achilles' heels. The democratic centre-right voters who hate the Greens and dislike the Social Democrats will end up with red or green in government if they vote CSU or CDU. Söder is trying not to drive voters to the FDP or even the AfD. A certain fear that is entirely justified.

The FDP could capitalise on this and thus most likely win over CDU voters by saying: If you vote for Merz, you will get Robert Habeck as Economics Minister or Hubertus Heil as Social Affairs Minister, but you actually wanted a change in policy.

It won't be red-green alone, it won't be black-blue and it won't be black-yellow either. Something will come about that nobody really wants – as is always the case with compromises.

There seems to be more excitement today – partly because we no longer have the traditional political camps. Everyone has to fight much more for themselves. That's why it looks as if everyone will be less able to work together afterwards. But they will have to unite. Otherwise, we will either end up with ungovernability, a repeat election or even better results for the AfD.

It will take longer, there's no question about that, but they will have to get their act together somehow. The population is not so sceptical in this respect.