That’s going to be a good start. Armin Laschet has a frog in his throat. He coughs at the greeting, clears his throat at the introductory question about social justice and in the meantime searches for his voice when he tries to attack his two competitors, who have apparently secretly united against him: “It’s not about us. You have to don’t just think about yourself, “you can just hear the CDU boss saying. Now the organizers of ProSieben and Sat.1 should think urgently of Laschet: Can someone bring him a Coke to oil his voice?
The hospitality of the private broadcasters left a lot to be desired anyway. The panellists who are applying for the Chancellery must first hear in a single player that all three of them cannot really do it. Nice welcome. Annalena Baerbock (Greens), Olaf Scholz (SPD) and Armin Laschet (CDU) look equally dizzy into the cameras. At that moment it becomes clear: You are not only three opponents, but also three fellow sufferers.
Presumably you can no longer count how often you have already trialled yourself. In addition to the mini-series of official television debates, which had its finale on Sunday evening on ProSieben and Sat.1, Annalena Baerbock (Greens), Armin Laschet (CDU) and Olaf Scholz (SPD) have met in all kinds of semi-official formats in recent weeks . For example, they discussed at the Munich Security Conference, at the Federal Association of Energy and Water Management or at the WDR European Forum. And several Bundestag debates also ended up running like trifles in disguise, namely whenever all candidates for chancellor were present in full. The first insight from the presumably last triell before the federal election is therefore: amazing that they still have something to say to each other.
After 90 minutes there are a number of other findings:
Two against one
It almost looked as if coalition negotiations were not imminent, but had already ended. Annalena Baerbock and Olaf Scholz presented themselves more harmoniously than in any previous trial, at least in the first half hour. Again and again both emphasized that the SPD and the Greens were calling for something similar, in terms of the minimum wage as well as in tax policy. Even in the discussion about the future of Hartz IV, cuddling was the first candidate obligation: Baerbock twice criticized Laschet’s statements and spared Scholz, although the former SPD general secretary was one of the founders of the basic social security system, which has meanwhile become so unpopular with the SPD and the Greens, in the studio.
Two against one, that wasn’t an easy position for Armin Laschet. The impression of the red-green marriage was also reinforced by fade-ins in which the Union candidate spoke and the two competitors looked at him like a distant duo. Laschet repeatedly got into the ungrateful role of not just promising more money, but of arguing more fundamentally. It was therefore no wonder that the CDU boss soon had by far the highest number of speakers of all three candidates.
The unit only took a break when it came to climate protection. Here Baerbock repeated what she had already scored points in the last triell on ARD and ZDF: She criticized that Scholz and Laschet, the representatives of the grand coalition, had long enough time, but only talked. Scholz, however, continued to try not to let the Greens out of his embrace. With a sentimental touch he recalled the nuclear phase-out that was once decided by Red-Green, which Angela Merkel had in the meantime withdrawn with the FDP until Fukushima also put an end to nuclear power in Germany. But then Baerbock let the cuddly Soci be flashed off.
A bizarre incident on the subject of internal security: After Laschet and Baerbock had spoken out, Scholz did not have a say. The moderators went on to the next topic. Did you think he was saying the same thing as Baerbock anyway?
With the inevitable coalition question, Baerbock and Scholz finally rounded off their red-green evening: Both wanted the Union in the opposition, which Laschet countered with the warning of red-red-green.
Favorite topic of the evening
The first step forward for Scholz was that he should say “in one sentence” right from the start, what he really wanted to achieve as Chancellor – to use as few words as possible is something like his specialty. Two and a half sentences later, however, Scholz was completely in his element again: For the SPD candidate, it was most beautiful that the first half hour of the Triell was devoted entirely to social justice. After all, he had just via Picture on sunday announces his priorities as Chancellor: “I promise the citizens: The minimum wage will be raised to 12 euros next year with me as Chancellor.”
And so Scholz was able to say after the clip about a single mother with two jobs, firstly, that he could “absolutely” empathize with such people, and secondly, repeat his minimum wage requirement. “Ten million people would benefit from it,” said Scholz, a “great improvement” for their “arduous life”. Yes, the Social Democrat was obviously not afraid of a little extra pathos on Sunday evening. Baerbock also said: “We need a minimum wage of twelve euros” and also called for basic child security, because children had no place in the Hartz IV system. So Laschet was in a rather uncomfortable position. But because he already knows this from his election campaign, he did what he has been doing for months: close your eyes and get on with it.
First of all, he talked about his own childhood, he knew that he had to stretch himself to the ceiling (“Four children, one income, my father was a miner”). Then he reminded Scholz that the minimum wage in Germany had been placed in the hands of the collective bargaining partners and their minimum wage commission so that it would not become a lure of the parties in the election campaign. Laschet was not only right about this, but also a point. It is questionable, however, whether the upholding of collective bargaining autonomy and the demand for more collective bargaining for higher wages caused the audience to tremble enthusiastically on the sofa. Such Scholz sentences were more suitable for this: “I am concerned with the dignity of the citizens – that is perhaps what sets us apart.” However, Laschet managed to give his opponent at least half a hit. When he said that after the twelve euros you could return to the minimum wage commission, which sounded like “Once is no time”, Lascht replied: “Who should believe you?” And besides, Scholz could only enforce his twelve euros with red-green-red anyway, otherwise he would have no partner for it.
Laschet still remains on the defensive when it comes to social issues. Even when the language came up on Hartz IV. The Greens and the SPD want a basic child security, the Greens higher Hartz IV rates and the SPD loosened Hartz IV rules. And Laschet? Said that the best protection against poverty is when parents have work and children have good educational opportunities, that he wants to relieve single parents and families with small and medium incomes. There is little to be said against this, but it is not a hall sweeper. And then, of course, this matter came up again with the relief of the top earners, which the SPD and Green Laschet accuse (Baerbock: “They want to give something to the richest”) and by which they primarily mean the abolition of the solidarity surcharge. Because Scholz and Baerbock like to emphasize that people with such high incomes as members of parliament and ministers could easily pay a little more taxes, Laschet tried this time to reinterpret their first-person narration a little. It’s not about these two, he said, but about the master baker and the plumber, for example, who are not an AG and whose income is also subject to income tax.
Mickey Mouse instead of foreign policy
The two moderators Linda Zervakis and Claudia von Brauchitsch had decided to ask questions that were as “everyday” as possible. In fact, it worked well at first. They led into the debate in a pleasantly straightforward manner. Von Brauchitsch said right at the beginning that she would not allow “blah blah”. Zervakis provided the best moment of the evening when she pulled out a Mickey Mouse booklet from 1993 from under the desk, which was already about the destruction of the rainforests. She asked Laschet whether Mickey Mouse understood the urgency of climate change earlier than the CDU. Laschet suppressed a smile, he has meanwhile learned how to do it. Then he started a counterattack, who sat. “When your Mickey Mouse booklet came out,” he told Zervakis, the CDU Environment Minister Klaus Töpfer had already initiated the process in Rio that the climate issue had to be resolved globally. If Laschet fails next week, at least not because of Walt Disney.
Another nice idea from the moderators was the rubric: Politicians ask politicians. Baerbock decided to ask Scholz about the money laundering, while Laschet decided to ask Baerbock what she expected from Scholz on this issue. At least an interesting choice, maybe a bit complicated. Scholz wanted to know from Laschet why the already agreed project of dividing the increased heating costs through CO2 pricing between tenants and landlords had failed because of the Union. “That was a bit slower the last few weeks,” confessed Laschet.
The second part of the debate was also somewhat slower. The moderators had come up with so many great ideas that there was hardly any time for the central topics. First the group rushed through the corona policy, then the moderators chose an abbreviation for internal security, touched on digitization as if in passing. Once again, foreign policy was not discussed at all.
And the winner is …?
The final triall. Who would actually want to see that after 180 minutes? The program on Sat.1 and ProSieben was the closest to the election, but many citizens have probably already seen enough of the many election programs of the past few weeks. At least the first half of this trial was probably the best part of all three arguments. With that, the organizing stations were already determined to be the surprise winners of the evening.
For the first time, the focus was simply on the question: How do voters benefit from voting for one or the other party? Sounds easy, but in the other programs it often got lost in coalition issues, the dispute over alleged or real scandals or other mutual accusations. This time, guided by the two moderators, Claudia von Brauchitsch and Linda Zervakis, there was even a well-tempered discussion. Later, however, the time pressure overtook this program again, so that other topics tended to fray.
In the end, the political result remained more or less the same as after the first broadcasts. Although Laschet attacked less this time, he couldn’t catch up. In a survey by the broadcasters, Scholz (42 percent) was well ahead of Laschet (27), who was just ahead of Baerbock (25). The only question that would have been clearer that evening would have been whether there was still a need for a fourth triell. But that was not asked.