Olaf Scholz has been nominated by the SPD board as their chancellor candidate, following debates about Boris Pistorius. Political expert Frank Decker emphasizes the advantages of supporting the sitting chancellor to avoid complications during the campaign. Despite the Union’s polling lead, the SPD must unify and focus on critical issues like job security and welfare. Scholz’s moderate foreign policy may help shift the party’s strategy, although doubts about the candidate choice could resurface if recovery isn’t evident by January.
SPD’s Choice: Olaf Scholz as Chancellor Candidate
In a significant move, the SPD board has officially nominated Olaf Scholz as their candidate for chancellor. This decision comes after intense discussions within the party about whether to run with Boris Pistorius instead. Political analyst and party expert Frank Decker highlights the importance of not underestimating the current chancellor, despite the challenges he faces.
Understanding the SPD’s Strategy
According to Frank Decker, the SPD’s reliance on Olaf Scholz is straightforward: he is the sitting chancellor. If the party had chosen another candidate, it would have created a complicated situation, as Scholz would remain in power throughout the campaign. This approach minimizes the risks associated with a leadership change during an election cycle.
While the Union currently holds a significant advantage in the polls, which can be a double-edged sword, the SPD must work diligently to bridge the gap. The real election campaign is set to kick off in the second week of January. Historical precedents suggest that comeback victories are possible; for instance, in 2005, Gerhard Schröder nearly turned the tide despite a seemingly bleak position.
However, it is crucial for the SPD to unify behind Scholz and actively campaign for him, particularly during this challenging winter election period. They need to address key issues that may undermine their political adversaries, such as job security in various industries and the preservation of the welfare state, with a focus on pension stability.
On the international stage, Scholz’s moderate stance, especially regarding support for Ukraine, could provide an opportunity for the SPD to shift from a defensive position to a more proactive one.
The recent public debate over whether Pistorius would make a stronger chancellor candidate has undoubtedly caused some damage to the SPD. It was a missed opportunity not to capitalize on the momentum following the coalition breakdown. Investigations have shown that the SPD was correct in asserting that the FDP sought this coalition split, and they should have promptly declared Scholz as their candidate in that context.
If party members can rally behind Scholz now, these internal discussions may soon fade from memory. However, if there is no sign of recovery by January, doubts about the party’s candidate choice may resurface.
When Pistorius stepped back from the race, the CDU seemed to breathe easier. Their leading candidate, Friedrich Merz, while also struggling with popularity, is viewed as less unfavorable than Scholz. The question remains whether the CDU can truly benefit from Scholz’s candidacy.
Decker expresses skepticism about the notion that Pistorius would have posed a significant challenge to the Union. His candidacy would have presented its own set of risks, particularly regarding social and economic issues, where he lacks the same level of expertise as Scholz. Therefore, Scholz should not be dismissed or underestimated as the campaign unfolds.
This insightful discussion was conducted by Matthias Kündig.