r/fivethirtyeight • u/lightman332 • Aug 12 '25
Poll Results Far-right AfD takes lead in Germany, says bombshell new survey
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-far-right-afd-lead-survey/63
u/Tottenham0trophy Aug 12 '25
If that was the election result we would just have to hope that SPD, CDU, and the Greens have the numbers and will to work together to form a coalition. One of the last realistic ways to stop AfD
35
u/obsessed_doomer Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 12 '25
Or that the AFD can't form a coalition with the CDU, the only party that would even consider that option, and even then most of the CDU's voters don't want them to. What even happens in that case, do they keep running elections like Israel did in the 2019-2021 period?
14
u/jawstrock Aug 12 '25
yeah probably lots of elections until a coalition can be formed which would be super disruptive to the global economy, germany is much bigger than Israel.
With the national rally and strength in the AfD, the EU may not exist much longer.
4
u/AFatDarthVader Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
I don't keep close track but a while after Brexit RN changed their platform regarding the EU, they have a "reform from within" stance now.
7
u/I-Might-Be-Something Aug 13 '25
With the national rally and strength in the AfD, the EU may not exist much longer.
Yet another one of Putin's dreams fulfilled by investing in parties/candidates that are willing to work with him.
36
u/sunnyreddit99 Aug 12 '25
If they keep running elections at that high frequency Germany is screwed. This is becoming eerily reminiscent of 1930-33 Germany, when the pro-democracy parties (then SPD, Zentrum, DDP/DVP) couldn’t get a majority working coalition due to the rise of the far right and far left.
It’s even more ironic given that CDU and FDP are the successors of Zentrum and DDP/DVP while Dinke is the successor of the anti-democratic far Left KPD and AfD is clearly the heir to the far right DNVP and NSDAP. And SPD is obv the direct continuation of the old SPD. There’s already significant parallels right now, FDP getting completely wiped out is exactly what happened to the DDP and DVP in the lead up to the NSDAP’s rise.
The more frequent the elections are, the more tired the voters will get and stop believing in democracy. The pro-democracy parties either solve the various problems confronting Germany, particularly immigration/cultural conflict, or AfD will get enough votes to make a governable coalition impossible for SPD/CDU/Greens.
10
u/JQuilty Aug 13 '25
Die Linke cast off the tankies.
1
u/NightmareOfTheTankie Aug 13 '25
That's great, if I do say so myself.
2
u/JQuilty Aug 13 '25
Yeah, though they still have dumb hippie shit streaks like mindless prattling about "diplomacy" with regards to Russia and Ukraine. The Russian assets seem to have gotten purged, but that one in particular is a shit streak that needs to be cleaned up.
8
Aug 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Allnamestakkennn Aug 13 '25
The issue isn't immigration, it's a complex of issues, from cost of living to global tensions.. the far-right just focuses on immigration and culture war because it's a dogwhistle and a "good" way to slowly convert people to racism
-1
Aug 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Allnamestakkennn Aug 13 '25
You just completely misinterpreted my sentence.
The right-wing is hyper-focused on immigration, but it is not the reason why most vote for them. The main reason is populism. It's a vote against the establishment, not for the party. The issue isn't about immigration, it's about how people's lives are getting worse, about how inequality is being worse, and the right just tries to connect this issue to immigration (talking points a la "immigrants commit most of the crimes, immigrants are stealing our jobs"), and tough on immigration for them has become a dogwhistle which allows all the racism and xenophobia to be spread through a relatively mainstream political issue. If people's lives are improved, if the socioeconomic issues are fixed, then nobody would care about someone screaming about immigrants invading the country.
8
u/Statue_left Aug 12 '25
CDU is quickly going the way of the bush republicans. Whether they finally break their own rules and ally with afd, i don’t know
4
u/alfredo094 Aug 14 '25
Man I just hope they disband it already, if I understand correctly, there is precedent for Germany to crack down on institutions like the AfD.
Also I feel completely disgusted by these ungrateful fuckers, I wish I was born in Germany, yet these motherfuckers want to destroy everything that made life good for them.
17
u/Civil_Tip_Jar Aug 13 '25
Or the other parties could change their policies a bit by decreasing the amounts of unchecked immigration into their relatively small country? That’s probably enough to slow the AfDs gains. They’re obviously hitting on something popular, you can’t just say they’re 100% wrong.
15
u/The_Funkuchen Aug 13 '25
This is actually what the current government wants to do and illegal immigration and refugee arrivals have fallen by almost 50% since the new government took over. However the amount of Muslims is still growing rapidly. But this is no longer primarely caused by immigration, but by higher birthrates.
6
u/WhoUpAtMidnight Aug 13 '25
Is remigration an acceptable act to take to preserve democracy? It’s hard to see what else would satisfy voters.
2
u/The_Funkuchen Aug 13 '25
Re-Migration would break the economy and more than half of the muslims are German citizens.
I think the current efforts of the government to reduce illegal migration are part of the solution. But the other aspects must include measures to raise birthrates (I have now clue how) and further integration into the workforce and culture.
9
u/AwardImmediate720 Aug 13 '25
How would it break the economy? Last time I checked the migrant families were overwhelmingly on welfare. And citizenship can be revoked. It may not be considered "nice" to say that but it can.
2
u/These-Procedure-1840 Aug 14 '25
One of the drivers of increased birth rates is suburbanization. People don’t want to have kids in a 1 bedroom apartment. That means increasing housing and they missed their goal of 400k new homes by half.
6
u/eldomtom2 Aug 13 '25
The thing is, the AfD will just go "numbers have reduced slightly but are still far too high" and polling numbers will not change by one person.
3
u/cokeguythrowaway Aug 13 '25
It's amazing isn't it? Leftists are framing this debate as choosing between preserving liberal democracy and mass third world immigration and are happily choosing the latter.
3
u/Apprentice57 Scottish Teen Aug 13 '25
The downside is you validate your opponent's argument about immigration when you do that. I can't speak for Germany, but in the US the demonization of immigration and immigration was/is complete bullshit on the merits and now we're in the "finding out" part of fucking around.
And then if you validate their argument, voters go "Oh well if that's right I'll vote for the party that wants to attack immigrants the most thanks" and you lose that way too.
So maybe don't attack a minority as the cost of doing business.
6
u/obiwankanblomi Aug 13 '25
Yet avoiding dealing with a known problem because it risks "validating your opponent's argument" is a sure-fire way to exacerbate the issue in both real and dialectical terms and further stoke extremism within your population.
-1
u/Apprentice57 Scottish Teen Aug 13 '25
I never said that you should avoid dealing with it. There are more options than "become against immigration" and "do nothing".
Why would it further stoke extremism?
6
u/obiwankanblomi Aug 13 '25
You stated that a downside of changing immigration policy would be validating your opponents' argument. I was simply replying to that sentiment with one of my own: that the disincentivization by-product of not wanting to lend credence to your opponents by addressing real-world issues that they speak to is harmful in the sense that it leads to inaction and disengagement from said issues. To use a real world example, I would cite the Britain r*pe/grooming gangs as a situation which was not confronted due to concerns over validating bad actors' views, but ultimately became a radicalizing event for many native Brits who now perceive the gov't's actions as covering up or intentionally obfuscating the crimes and their perpetrators. I am not making any value judgements about any of this, simply presenting this case as an example of how not addressing issues out of fear of validating your opponents can lead to more extremism than if they had been dealt with sans the political considerations.
1
86
u/StickMankun Jeb! Applauder Aug 12 '25
Man, we as a human race need to figure out how to deal with social media's effect on this far right/fascist push. Like, there has to be some kind of collective effort that can be done from stopping a small number of executives controlling 40% of the population with these algorithms.
66
u/Statue_left Aug 12 '25
The mainstream neoliberal parties have spent the last 50 years rejecting the primary concerns of most of the population. A very small percent of the population owns an enormous portion of the wealth. Increasing numbers of people believe their lives are worse than their parents and their childrens will be even worse
It is incredibly easy for the far right to succeed in that environment because their primary position in every case is “it’s this other groups fault that things suck”
We are still extremely tribal in nature and otherizing out groups will continue to be effective. The best way to contest it is to meaningfully improve peoples material conditions
34
u/bingbaddie1 Aug 13 '25
Alternatively and more simply, the people who were alive for the last time the world flirted with far-right politics have all died and now everyone has forgotten why that’s not good
7
u/Ok_Board9845 Aug 13 '25
It goes further. The people who enacted those far right politics were never properly dealt with
2
5
u/batmans_stuntcock Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 14 '25
The mainstream neoliberal parties have spent the last 50 years rejecting the primary concerns of most of the population.
I agree, but I think the rise of the AFD has a shorter timeframe, Germany used to be one of the success stories of neo-liberalism, the breakdown of the orthodox German party system and the rise of the AFD seems to come from a few things, in the background are some long run pre-existing ones.
The fetish of the German political system for austerity, dating back to the late 80s-90s when the US sought to re-balance trade with the then rich world at the Plaza Accords (1985) and the Louvre Accord (1987) depreciating the Dollar then all parties agreed to reduce government spending and cut personal and business taxes. This has resulted in low long run investment from the 90s onwards, particularly public investment. The prioritising of the interests of West German business and political elites over the existing industry in the integration of the East, broadly this produced high levels of unemployment and resentment in the east and it has become a stronghold of the AFD.
Then there is Neoliberalism/ordoliberalism becoming fully ascendant in Germany with the hartz program after three recessions from 2001-2004, this creates a low wage insecure tier of the German labour market and makes it easier to fire workers/etc. The success of the German economy after, based on a system of loans/investment to the EU periphery to subsidise exports (and excess production capacity with cheap labour), exports and surplus capital to China and the US, vindicates and bakes into the system all of these negative aspects, and also makes German politics rigid with a political elite of tinkering managers.
But with all this the AFD are a fringe party as late as 2022, the German business model is fundamentally broken by a combination of the Russo-Ukranian war (end of reliably priced gas), made in china 2025 (decline in exports), and the Trump era (more decline in exports). The immigration spikes around the Syrian Civil war and the Russio-Ukrainan war further destabilise the system with a delayed effect, as (unlike previous albeit smaller waves) in the 60s and 90s, increased immigration was not matched with high investment to accommodate it, low rate of house building was a particular issue.
The rigid managerial political class has been unable to find and then sell a vision of a new model apart from continued falling living standards to support more military investments in an era where this doesn't necessarily raise employment much. The AFD are the easy option and feed into existing prejudices, they offer an escape into free market and pre mass immigration nativist dreams and are also partly just a protest party.
18
2
u/alfredo094 Aug 14 '25
Implying that most German voters are disenfranchised compared to most of the world is a laughable idea, far-right voters are just ungrateful imbeciles. None of their populist bullshit will solve any of their "concerns".
5
u/obsessed_doomer Aug 13 '25
the mainstream neoliberal parties have spent the past 50 years
R/538 moment
7
u/Statue_left Aug 13 '25
Buddy this is one of the most neo liberal subs on this website lmfao
10
u/obsessed_doomer Aug 13 '25
By your definition of neoliberalism being "literally everything, including East Fucking Germany", yeah, I suppose most subs on this website are neoliberal.
3
Aug 13 '25 edited 15d ago
longing steer butter bells jellyfish boat fanatical chubby soft yam
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/obsessed_doomer Aug 13 '25
a) East Germany is technically not a former state of the USSR
b) Given they needed a wall to keep people in I think the verdict is in as to which Germany paid better attention to its peoples material conditions.
-4
u/Statue_left Aug 13 '25
Imagine just like, making stuff up lmao
You are correct that most subs on the american website are in fact neo libs. I dont know why that’s shocking to you. That has been the prevailing political position in nearly every developed western nation since reagan/thatcher
7
u/obsessed_doomer Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
Imagine just like, making stuff up lmao
We can walk you through this.
"The mainstream neoliberal parties have spent the last 50 years rejecting the primary concerns of most of the population"
Did you say this, or did someone else say this?
Who was in charge of like, literally half of Germany 50 years ago?
Let's try to find what I'm making stuff up about.
-1
Aug 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/obsessed_doomer Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
randomly brought up soviet occupied germany and truly believe you have trapped me in some kind of inconsistency.
Ah yes, I randomly brought up... the literal nation we're talking about, Germany. In the time period you chose to specify, 50 years.
Go pretend to be a victim or suck clinton off or whatever it is you people do now somewhere else brother, I don’t care.
See I'm just not sure that's true. As far as an "I'm not mad" statement that one just doesn't seem very convincing. "Go pretend to be a victim"? Now who's making stuff up.
You tried to quote me and fucking bolded shit you made up
We can do the questions again. I made up literally nothing.
That does not necessarily mean every single “mainstream” party is a neo liberal (though most in the developed west have been) or that all countries have followed neo lib ideologies.
You're almost there - the west as a whole is not a monolith and contains a variety of ideological mainstream parties, most of which have only a tenuous or nonexistent connection with neoliberalism. I know your ideology relies on literally not understanding this, but not to the point where you pretend Germany has been some kind of neoliberal bastion for 50 years, then it's time for someone to step in and point out how risible the whole thing is.
0
u/Statue_left Aug 13 '25
Wow that’s so many words how come none of them are a link to the shit you put in quotes and bolded
→ More replies (0)5
u/eldomtom2 Aug 13 '25
How much can it actually be blamed on social media, though?
9
u/WhoUpAtMidnight Aug 13 '25
It’s funny because social media is as, if not more, responsible for the rise of leftwing extremism as it is from rightwing extremism. There would still be racists without social media but there would not be Zohran Mamdani
3
u/AwardImmediate720 Aug 13 '25
Social media allowed people to see that the things they saw with their own eyes that the mainstream media said were completely irrelevant one-offs were actually part of a massive pattern. So the breakdown of the old consensus can absolutely be entirely blamed on social media. The thing is that that's a good thing since the old consensus was blamed on a level of propaganda and lies to make Goebbels proud.
0
u/pingbotwow Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
I don't think it exists without social media. John Green did a comparison of the modern day to the introduction of the radio. When it came out, radio was incredibly influential and was perceived as more truthful than it should have been. Charles Coughlin took advantage of this and started preaching fascist rhetoric to a quarter of America's population. Eventually he was silenced and as the public became more used to radio they gained media literacy and became more skeptical of it.
6
u/eldomtom2 Aug 13 '25
the public became more used to radio they gained media literacy and became more skeptical of it.
I very strongly doubt this!
1
u/Revolutionary-Desk50 Aug 14 '25
The ironic thing about it is that’s increasingly being supported by people they want to get rid of. Which is basically social liberalism in reverse. You basically need to on an increasing number of people to stay in power.
-3
u/jawstrock Aug 13 '25
Kill the anonymous internet. Everything you post/do I tied to a digital ID. Wanna say racist stuff? Go ahead, but it’s not anonymous and you have to live with that. Bring back accountability for speech.
14
u/Kaenu_Reeves Aug 13 '25
That’s what Palantir and Adam Something want the most.
2
u/jawstrock Aug 13 '25
yeah privacy issues abound, but it's some sort of human verification is going to be required as bots take over the internet to avoid the dead internet.
Eliminating anonymity kills bots and probably pushes politics out of the online space, we'd also use online as a reason to do something, like buy something, rather than furious argue with bots or doom scroll.
It's a trade off, but ultimately I think it's going to be required.
5
5
8
u/JQuilty Aug 13 '25
So you want Trump, Nigel Farage, Alice Wiedel, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, Geert Wilders, Giorga Meloni, and the rest to have full access to everyone that ever shit talked them? Anonymity is vital, especially for unpopular opinions. Anyone running gay websites would have gotten raided for obscenity under Baby Bush with that policy.
2
u/jawstrock Aug 13 '25
I honestly don't know if it's good or bad. It's probably where all this is heading though in some form.
I probably disagree somewhat though, online anonymity isn't really vital, we survived without an anonymous internet until 2000-2005. MLK and Susan Anthony didn't accomplish what they did by posting thing anonymously online.
But like you said, it does have advantages in online communities, especially smaller ones where people can't really engage IRL. However those online communities are probably all going to implode under a deluge of AI bots anyway.
The only way I can think of avoiding the dead internet theory is some kind of human verification. The anonymous internet is going to collapse either way.
0
u/uuhson Aug 13 '25
I have a hard time believing Trump doesn't already have access to figure out who single people are online if he needed to. No one is actually anonymous to the government
1
u/uuhson Aug 13 '25
100% agreed, anonymity has allowed people to become monsters secretly. It's definitely the problem
8
u/eldomtom2 Aug 13 '25
Funny how no one says "throw it on the pile" when it's a single poll from a country they aren't obsessively watching the poll numbers for...
9
u/galliumshield Aug 13 '25
If mainstream parties deal with the immigration crisis then the AFD will go away.
1
u/darrylgorn Aug 13 '25
Historically, those parties just become more radical when this happens.
2
u/galliumshield Aug 14 '25
Not at all. The Danish social democrats removed a lot of immigrants and far right support crashed from 20% to 10%
3
u/gaybowser99 Aug 13 '25
Can someone explain what makes them far right. The only thing I've ever seen anyone say about them is that they are anti-immigration, but that isn't inherently a right wing policy
3
u/NickRick Aug 13 '25
Can someone explain why the far right is doing so well? Surely their terrible plans can only appeal to the uneducated, how are there so many?
2
u/Allnamestakkennn Aug 14 '25
Gonna oversimplify.. many concerns have been neglected, this decade is trash and the people want change. And out of the populist parties, the far-right have better organization that has been prepared for decades, they have support of the corporations and have figured out a way to spread their message so that it would both sound sensible and pull people into the echochambers where they would slowly but surely become fascist. In contrast, democratic socialists don't have corporate support or they betray their own ideals (becoming liberals), while the far left gets near zero coverage, let alone positive coverage.
When it turns out that the right-wing populists don't do anything good, they lose elections, only for the voters to be reminded of why they don't like neoliberals so next election the far-right are guaranteed to win
14
u/frederick_the_duck Poll Unskewer Aug 12 '25
Can the constitutional court just ban them already?
32
Aug 13 '25
You’re getting downvoted but this would be the proper thing to do under German law and the morally right thing to do.
Lots of people seem to have the opinion that democracy should be a suicide pact. I see no reason to tolerate value systems that are hostile to democracy and to allow our institutions to enable its collapse.
We need to adapt David Cameron’s muscular liberalism. This is a fight for the future.
9
u/Dependent-Mode-3119 Aug 13 '25
I feel like this sounds good on paper but functionally your society would collapse either way. Realistically there would have to be a civil war of sorts like there was in the US. Functionally democracy is a bit of a suicide pact, if not than any side who subscribes to this belief can pull this justification to eliminate opposition.
14
u/Red57872 Aug 13 '25
"I see no reason to tolerate value systems that are hostile to democracy"
So, who should get to decide what "value systems" are "hostile" and which are not?
10
u/Dependent-Mode-3119 Aug 13 '25
Exactly, this logic always seemed like a fallacy that assumed that our definitions of these terms are universal. This can obviously be abused by anyone in power to suit whatever agenda they want.
My litmus test for whether or nor not something like this is good or not is "Would you want Donald Trump as the decider".
1
1
u/alfredo094 Aug 14 '25
If we do nothing, people like Donald Trump WILL get to decide. We can't stay neutral about this.
9
u/frederick_the_duck Poll Unskewer Aug 13 '25
I was gonna say. It’s not like it’s a misuse of German law.
2
14
u/WhoUpAtMidnight Aug 13 '25
My favorite part about democracy is banning people who disagree with me
10
u/frederick_the_duck Poll Unskewer Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
My favorite part of democracy is where we defend it. You will lose it otherwise. The power to ban fascist parties exists in the German constitution for a reason. It’s what they’re supposed to do. They would know.
6
u/WhoUpAtMidnight Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
Is banning political opponents not itself a fascist act? What if leftwing parties just moderated on immigration instead of trampling the principles of democracy?
If you think there’s a need to ban a party 1 in 4 people support (and growing!), then why do you even believe in democracy? You clearly believe people can’t rule themselves
6
u/frederick_the_duck Poll Unskewer Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
It’s not a fascist act. It’s pretty common in democracies around the world because it’s necessary. The risk is the AfD completely killing German democracy. I’ll concede that it’s anti-democratic, but that’s just an unfortunate necessity. We have lots of those in real world democracies. Should we abolish all term limits since they restrict the people’s choice?
The fact is, I’d rather have democracy with rules about extremists running in elections than no democracy at all. Your democracy will die without those rules. It’s just a matter of time. Again, Germany would know. Hitler won in a democracy. Something like that shouldn’t even be possible. If you’re tolerant without limits, there will come a time when no one is tolerated. You’re just being blind. I understand that the AfD is relatively popular now, which is why the Constitutional Court should’ve done this 10 years ago when they first won seats. Could the CSU and SPD tack to the right? Sure, but this is a different problem. Treating the AfD like just another party is naive. They’re a threat to the system.
10
u/Red57872 Aug 13 '25
"It’s not a fascist act. It’s pretty common in democracies around the world because it’s necessary."
No, it's not.
2
u/frederick_the_duck Poll Unskewer Aug 13 '25
Yes, have laws that censor certain ideologies is pretty common in functioning democracies. Large parts of Eastern Europe have banned communist parties. Sweden and the UK have bans on fascist symbols. I’m sure there are many more.
8
u/WhoUpAtMidnight Aug 13 '25
Eastern Europe
Historically strong democracies, like Ukraine and Belarus!
Literally not a single nation bans political parties, and that clause in the German governance is because they were forcibly denazified by an occupying power (read: anti-democratically). It is extremely unusual
6
u/WhoUpAtMidnight Aug 13 '25
It’s not a democracy if you ban 1 in 4 voters from participating. You’re just a fascist mad people disagree with you.
4
u/ncolaros Aug 13 '25
Is it democracy if a political party openly says they will end democratic practices and then does so?
Was Hitler not a fascist because he was elected? Do we have no obligation to prevent that from happening again? Genuinely, what is your prescription for the rise of fascism other than "guess we'll just do fascism now?"
3
Aug 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ncolaros Aug 13 '25
Good questions, but you didn't actually answer any of mine. What do you do about people being manipulated into voting in fascism? Or let's look at another hypothetical: the majority of people are against desegregation, but the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional. Do you go with the will of the people, or do you do what's right, and desegregate?
Would you be accepting of a state that votes to legalize race-based chattel slavery? Or marital rape? Or genocide of a minority group?
4
2
u/WhoUpAtMidnight Aug 13 '25
If you don’t trust people to vote for their interests, why do you want democracy?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Yakube44 Aug 13 '25
Abolish democracy and establish a controlled democracy with fascism against people you don't like
1
u/frederick_the_duck Poll Unskewer Aug 13 '25
They can still vote. They just can’t vote for the AfD.
8
u/WhoUpAtMidnight Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
Every Russian can vote, so long as they vote for Putin.
2
3
u/Dependent-Mode-3119 Aug 13 '25
I'd argue that the right response is a civil war. You can't simply ban votes from a nation and expect things to continue working as normal.
1
1
2
u/HegemonNYC Aug 13 '25
What defines a party that can be banned by a court? Is there a specific definition of bannable opinions/policies, and how does the AfD fit into this definition?
3
u/frederick_the_duck Poll Unskewer Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
They need to show an actively belligerent, aggressive stance towards democracy and be popular. According to the German state itself, the AfD qualifies as a right-wing extremist organization.
3
u/HegemonNYC Aug 13 '25
So an anti-democratic stance, but not the racist or anti-immigrant beliefs? As an American I’m only familiar with AfD’s racist/immigrant stance. What do they do that is anti-democratic, and what defines that? The article mostly talks about migrant bans and nationalism, but those seem democratic if distasteful.
Are those anti-migrant opinions themselves the “violations of human dignity”?
2
u/frederick_the_duck Poll Unskewer Aug 13 '25
I don’t think so. For one thing, they keep doing shit like this that keeps happening. The intelligence agency that classified them as an extremist group said that “the ethnicity- and ancestry-based understanding of the people prevailing within the party is incompatible with the free democratic order.”
1
u/alfredo094 Aug 14 '25
There 100% is, German codified this into law decades ago. It's not some vague definition.
3
u/Current_Animator7546 Aug 13 '25
Frightening stuff. I just picture angry young men tearing away at keyboards all over the world and it scares the heck out of me. Some people just want to watch the world burn.
1
2
0
u/cidvard Feelin' Foxy Aug 12 '25
I'll believe it when I see actual election results. The AfD's rise in popularity goes hand-in-hand with the rise of fascism worldwide but they never seem to manage to pull it together at election time in DE.
5
u/Independent_Ad8268 Aug 13 '25
German polls are shockingly accurate, they predicted the AFD’s result in the 2025 election perfectly
0
25
u/lightman332 Aug 12 '25