@marktwse If it's a relevant topic in the sense of "Energy is too expensive / not clean enough, because we abandoned nuclear", but there is no discussion about restarting old plants or building new ones, how would you want to resolve?

@Primer One piece of evidence I'm waiting for is the Wahl-o-mat as it is a rather neutral selection of topics. Another one is the upcoming tv duells since they serve as focal points of the debate.

Merz is definitely talking about it and the CDU manifesto contains:

Wir halten an der Option Kernenergie fest. [...] Die Wiederaufnahme des Betriebs der zuletzt abgeschalteten Kernkraftwerke prüfen wir.

Rough translation: We keep nuclear energy as an option. [...] We will assess restarting the shut-down nuclear plants.

@marktwse I'm just wondering how strict you will adhere to

relevant discussion topic between parties during the election campaign to turn nuclear power plants on again or build new ones

Especially the "turn [...] on again" and "build new" part. Like which of the following sentences would suffice for the TV duel part?

1. It was a mistake to shut down the plants

2. We should do a new assessment of safety and economic potential

3. We will do a new assessment of safety and economic potential

4. We want to assess if we can build new plants

5. We want to build new plants

@Primer It isn't about specific sentences. It is about the relevancy of the topic.

If one candidate in a tv duell mentions nuclear plants, it isn't necessarily relevant yet. The question is if the other candidates respond to it and it becomes an actual debate. Will the media reporting mention that aspect of the duell or will it be other topics?

It seems likely that it will come up, so the 80% feels about right to me. On the other hand, maybe we forget about it and everybody just talks about Musk and Immigration.

@marktwse Seems like we're talking slightly past each other, sorry for that. Is it sufficient (case 1) if they argue about whether it was a mistake to shut doen nuclear, or whether nuclear is good or bad. Or (case 2) do they need to discuss about either turning plants back on or building new ones (as per the wording in the criteria)?

@Primer There needs to some relation to the election, i.e. the future. The past (case 1) is not relevant in itself. However, in an election context, like a debate, surely they will connect it. Probably some implied "you are incompetent".

So, yes both, case 1 and 2, should be sufficient.

@marktwse Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying!

@Primer Thanks for asking! Better to clarify things in advance. I hope this will be easy to resolve. 🤞

@marktwse I hope so! Good luck!

The AI turned your last comment into an addition to the description. It doesn't make much sense on its own, you might want to edit it.

If the Wahl-o-mat website has it among its questions. (It surely will).

If the CDU has it in its manifesto. (It has.) https://www.merkur.de/wirtschaft/cdu-atomkraft-deutschland-kernkraft-kernenergie-akws-grundsatzprogramm-2023-zr-92722693.html

If CDU puts it on its placard. (it will not, most likely)

If the AfD puts it (less unlikely)