Under the label “non-partisan,” the “Tactical Voting 2026” campaign seeks to prevent the AfD from benefiting from as many votes as possible in the state election in Saxony-Anhalt. At the center of this are primarily the SPD and the Greens. Behind the campaign, however, is The Goodforces, a political communications agency that openly supports progressive majorities. The “neunund20” project, which The Goodforces presents as its own, even names a majority made up of the SPD, Greens and Left in the 2029 federal election as a long-term goal.

Wolfgang Kubicki is right to criticize this arrangement. Because anyone working politically in a clearly defined direction is of course entitled to do so. But the political evaluation involved in such a campaign should be just as clearly recognizable as the label “non-partisan.”

The decisive question is therefore quite simple: Is the aim really only to prevent an AfD majority, or is a particular political camp also meant to be strengthened under the cover of tactical voting?

Passende X-Beiträge

Aus dem SCHLAGSEITE X-Archiv

Jüdische Allgemeine 08.09.2026 · 19:30 Uhr BSW-Gründerin Sahra Wagenknecht hat sich dafür ausgesprochen, einen AfD-Politiker zum Landtagspräsidenten in Sachsen-Anhalt zu wählen. Damit hätte die AfD die nötige Mehrheit für das… Jüdische Allgemeine 16.09.2026 · 18:00 Uhr Die Bürger von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern wählen am 20. September ihr Parlament. Wird der besorgniserregende Trend, der in Sachsen-Anhalt zu beobachten war, fortgesetzt und verfestigt? Ein… Jüdische Allgemeine 18.09.2026 · 06:15 Uhr AfD will FPÖ-Erfahrungen in Sachsen-Anhalt nutzen: »Von den politischen Erfahrungen der FPÖ können wir sicherlich profitieren«, sagt der Parlamentarische Geschäftsführer der AfD-Landtagsfraktion.

41 percent for the AfD changes the political calculation

On September 6, 2026 Saxony-Anhalt will elect a new state parliament. In the INSA poll published on July 23, the AfD stood at 41 percent. The CDU reached 24 percent, the Left 14 percent and the SPD 5 percent. The Greens, FDP and BSW each stood at 4 percent.

For the dispute raised by Wolfgang Kubicki, this polling position is important because the FDP and Greens were in fact tied at four percent.

There is now, however, a more recent Infratest-dimap poll, published on July 30, 2026 . It put the AfD at 41 percent, the CDU at 24 percent, the Left at 13 percent, the SPD at 7 percent, the Greens at 5 percent and the BSW at 4 percent. The FDP was not listed separately in this poll. Election polls remain snapshots and are not forecasts of the actual election result.

This gives the five-percent threshold enormous importance. In the distribution of seats, parties that receive at least five percent of the valid second votes are generally taken into account. If parties fail to clear this threshold, the balance of power between the remaining parties can shift significantly as a result.

This is precisely where “Tactical Voting 2026” comes in. The campaign wants to encourage voters to use their votes strategically in order to prevent an AfD government.

There is initially nothing objectionable about that. Every voter may cast their vote tactically, and every private initiative may campaign for a particular voting decision.

It only becomes interesting when asking who is meant to benefit from this tactical assistance and according to what criteria that is decided.

Why the SPD and Greens, but not the FDP?

The campaign focuses particularly on the SPD and Greens. On its website, it explains that both parties are to receive tactical support in the race to enter the state parliament.

For Kubicki’s criticism, the INSA poll from July 23 is particularly relevant. In it, the Greens, FDP and BSW were all at four percent.

Anyone arguing exclusively mathematically would therefore have to explain why a vote for the Greens is strategically particularly desirable, while a vote for the FDP apparently is not.

To be fair, the campaign itself says that its recommendations are not based solely on a single poll. According to its own account, it takes into consideration election results, local balances of power, current trends and political plausibility.

That also makes one thing clear: The recommendations are based not exclusively on mathematics, but explicitly also on a political assessment.

The BSW’s relationship with the AfD and possible political constellations can be debated. With the FDP, however, this justification is considerably less convincing.

The Free Democrats have explicitly stated for Saxony-Anhalt that they will not elect an AfD minister-president and will not participate in a government with the AfD. FDP federal chairman Wolfgang Kubicki has also ruled out a coalition between his party and the AfD.

Of course, a private campaign may still prefer the SPD or Greens. But it should then also be clearly stated that, alongside polls and electoral mathematics, political evaluation criteria explicitly play a role.

“Non-partisan” sounds different, at any rate

On its page “Who are we?” the initiative explicitly describes itself as a non-partisan campaign.

According to its own account, people from various democratic parties, as well as people without party affiliation, work there. Parties that stand behind the so-called firewall against the AfD would be treated according to the same standards.

This very claim raises questions.

At the time of the INSA poll cited by Kubicki, the FDP and the Greens were both at the same four percent. At the same time, the FDP explicitly stated that it would not elect an AfD minister-president and would not enter a government with the AfD.

This means that the five-percent threshold alone is not sufficient to explain the different treatment. The campaign itself ultimately confirms this by additionally making political plausibility one of its selection criteria.

Then it is also a matter of which political force the campaign’s organizers consider desirable.

That is legitimate. But it is not political neutrality.

The Goodforces is behind the campaign

Anyone who wants to know more precisely who organizes and finances “Tactical Voting” does not have to look far.

In the imprint the campaign is listed at the address of THE GOODFORCES GmbH in Berlin. The transparency notice on political advertising explicitly names The Goodforces as the sponsor and payer.

The costs published there currently amount to a total of 14,300 euros. Of this, 2,300 euros are stated to cover the website, domains, hosting, software and administration, while 12,000 euros are allocated to flyers and posters.

According to the company, these funds come from the company’s own operating business funds and were generated exclusively in Germany.

One should be precise here: This does not establish that the specific campaign is financed with taxpayers’ money.

Kubicki does, however, raise the broader question of how political agencies, public contracts and subsequent campaign work can interact. That question may be asked. The published financing information for “Tactical Voting” alone does not, however, allow one to infer state financing of this campaign.

The political direction is no secret

For the political classification of The Goodforces, however, no speculation is necessary.

The company itself describes its political work very clearly. The Goodforces sees itself as an actor that organizes attention, shifts debates and seeks to establish progressive perspectives in public discourse.

Its own website explicitly refers to progressive majorities in society and politics .

The company also explains that it wants to make progressive narratives visible at an early stage and strategically influence social debates .

There is nothing secretive about that. The Goodforces itself makes little secret of its political direction.

That is precisely why it seems odd when a campaign financed by this actor mainly advertises its non-partisanship to the outside world.

The Goodforces also worked for the Greens

The fact that The Goodforces is not simply a neutral service provider for general democracy projects is also shown by the company’s previous work.

Together with The Goodwins , The Goodforces says it developed the Greens’ campaign for the 2026 state election in Rhineland-Palatinate.

This included campaign strategy, communication and the creative implementation of the election campaign.

This does not mean that the Greens control the campaign “Tactical Voting” . There is no evidence of this, and such a claim would be unserious.

But it does clearly show that the organizational background of the supposedly non-partisan campaign can be located politically with considerable clarity.

The actual goal extends to 2029

This becomes even clearer with the project “neunund20”, which The Goodforces lists as a project on its own website.

The initiative describes itself as a movement for progressive political successes.

And here the general political direction becomes a very concrete goal: At the 2029 federal election, a majority made up of the SPD, Greens and Left is to emerge.

To achieve this, progressive forces are to be networked and progressive issues are to be brought back onto the political offensive with digital campaigns .

In other words: The goal is explicitly to build a left-progressive political majority.

Anyone pursuing this goal is entitled to do so. That is part of political debate in a democracy.

But then the term “non-partisan” takes on a rather peculiar aftertaste in a campaign being run at the same time.

Kubicki puts his finger on the right sore spot

Wolfgang Kubicki takes the campaign to task in his Cicero column .

I find much to agree with in his fundamental criticism.

When an agency with a clearly defined political position finances a campaign that primarily seeks to strengthen the SPD and Greens tactically, while other democratic parties had comparable polling figures—at least in the INSA poll cited by Kubicki—then the claimed non-partisanship may be questioned.

Regarding the term “far-left” I would, however, be more cautious than Kubicki . No corresponding official classification of The Goodforces or “Tactical Voting” is documented in the sources reviewed for this article.

The left-progressive orientation is clearly substantiated by the parties’ own publications. Far-left, by contrast, is a political assessment.

The criticism does not need this exaggeration either. The self-portrayals and projects of those involved already speak clearly enough.

Perhaps politics should direct its energy elsewhere

And at this point, the entire debate leads to a much more fundamental question.

Politics, initiatives and activists can devote an infinite amount of energy to fighting the AfD, building firewalls, developing tactical voting models and explaining to voters how to use their vote so that certain majorities are prevented.

But the same energy could also be used to find out why so many people have turned their backs on the established parties in the first place.

Perhaps it would be more sustainable to win back lost voters instead of constantly developing new strategies against their voting decisions.

For that, parties would have to listen more closely again. They would have to address the wishes, concerns and fears of the people , Align politics more closely with the realities of citizens’ lives.

That does not mean adopting the AfD’s positions or relativizing its problematic statements.

It simply means addressing the cause rather than just the symptom.

Anyone who wants to know why the AfD is polling at 41 percent in Saxony-Anhalt should not merely ask how to make those 41 percent as politically ineffective as possible in parliament.

They should also ask why the CDU, SPD, Greens, FDP and other parties no longer reach a significant proportion of their former voters.

And perhaps that is precisely where political energy would be better spent.

“Taktisch Wählen 2026” is allowed to campaign against an AfD government and issue tactical voting recommendations. But if the campaign is backed by an actor that openly organizes progressive majorities, campaigned for the Greens and is pursuing a long-term project aimed at a majority made up of the SPD, Greens and Left, the claim of non-partisanship must be critically scrutinized. More importantly, however, it would be better if the established parties did not devote most of their energy to tactically containing the AfD’s rise, but instead sought to win back lost voters with credible, people-oriented politics.