Written by Identrics Contents on page
This analysis was prepared by Devora Kotseva and Todor Kiriakov, Information Integrity Specialists at Identrics.
The official results of the 19 April vote allow us to conclude the Election Observatory series with a summary and assessment of the various approaches we applied over the past few weeks.
In the run-up to the early parliamentary elections, we launched the project with the intention of exploring innovative approaches to measuring the presence of key political actors in the information space.
We identified the most-discussed candidates on social media and the extent to which they relied on controversial language in their electoral communications.
We tracked prediction markets to determine how effectively they could be used to forecast election results, and tested what information the Bulgarian voter would receive from large language models.
Influence Score: Who Are Social Media Talking About?
The “Influence Score” (Impact Score) – proprietary metric formulated by Identrics – ranks politicians based on their presence in social media, taking into account not only posts from their official profiles but also posts from other profiles that mention them by name.
A high Influence Score indicates that a given politician is widely present in online conversations, regardless of whether they are an active participant or the subject of discussion.
Only registered candidates for the parliamentary elections of 19 April are included, which means that President Iliyana Yotova, the Prime Minister and ministers of the caretaker government, as well as individuals with a political background and positions who are not part of the candidate lists, are excluded from the rankings.
The study covers the period from 2 March to 19 April 2026 – seven weeks prior to the vote.
The top ten for this period includes politicians from nine political forces, including the leaders of the five that cleared the 4% threshold for entry into parliament. Interesting conclusions can be drawn from a comparison of our ranking and the final election results.
It is notable that the Influence Score of a large proportion of the leaders (measured in thousands of points) very precisely reflects the election result of their parties and coalitions (measured in percentages).
For example, Rumen Radev tops the ranking with a score of just over 45,000, whilst the Progressive Bulgaria coalition he leads received 44.6% of the vote. The minimal difference between Boyko Borisov (GERB-SDS) and Asen Vasilev (PP-DB) perfectly mirrors the extremely close results of the second and third political forces.
The positions of the leaders in the influence ranking correspond to the final ordering of the parties, with the only exception being Krum Zarkov, who ranks higher than the BSP-OL coalition he leads.
For DPS chairman Delyan Peevski, the Influence Score is formed almost entirely from mentions of his name in posts by other politicians and media, whilst he himself is not active on social media.
For this reason, his personal score of just over 9,000 points has no direct correlation with his party’s result (7.1%).
A trend is also observed whereby the leaders of some political forces – Vazrazhdane (Kostadin Kostadinov), MECh (Radostin Vasilev), Velichie (Ivelin Mihaylov), and Siyanie (Nikolay Popov) – enjoy personal online popularity that does not fully translate into votes.
During the monitoring period, we tracked on a weekly basis how the Influence Score of the leaders of the five main parties and coalitions – those that ultimately secured seats in the National Assembly – changed.
Radev’s total dominance comes as no surprise given the impressive election victory of his coalition. The narrowing of his lead over the other leaders, observed at the end of March and the beginning of April, had no effect on Progressive Bulgaria’s final results.
During the monitoring period, PP chair Asen Vasilev gradually closed the gap on Boyko Borisov of GERB-SDS and even overtook him in the final two weeks before the vote.
This online trend was borne out in the final results: GERB-SDS finished ahead of PP-DB by less than 0.8%, whilst opinion polls over the previous month had suggested a lead of between 7% and 12%.
In our overview we pay particular attention to the five formations that cleared the electoral threshold, examining which are the leading figures by influence within each of them.
The data again covers the seven weeks preceding the elections (2 March – 19 April 2026).
As fully expected, Rumen Radev leads the Progressive Bulgaria top 10, and what stands out here is his enormous lead over all others.
The leader’s score is more than 21 times higher than that of the second-placed individual – the largest such gap measured among the five leading political forces. This indicates that PB is currently the political force that draws most heavily on the figure of its leader for popularity and relevance.
Most of the remaining individuals in the top ten of Bulgaria’s leading political force can be divided into two categories: politicians and experts associated with the caretaker governments appointed by Rumen Radev (Ivan Demerdzhiev, Galab Donev, Ivan Shishkov, Anton Kutev), and well-known athletes standing on the coalition’s lists (volleyball player Vladimir Nikolov, swimmer Petar Stoychev, and karateka Ivet Goranova).
Within the GERB-SDS coalition, too, there is a significant gap between the leader and all others, with Boyko Borisov’s Influence Score nearly 7.5 times higher than that of second-placed Raya Nazaryan.
In her role as Speaker of the National Assembly in the period before the vote, Nazaryan emerged as the most recognisable face of GERB after Borisov.
That said, the greatest popularity during the monitoring period was generated by posts commenting on her accidentally caught expletive remark from the parliamentary podium.
The sharp and confrontational style of Delyan Dobrev earns him fourth place. All individuals in the GERB-SDS top ten are well-known names from the party’s senior ranks.
Within PP-DB, a coalition of several parties with different leaders, the central figure is PP chair Asen Vasilev.
His Influence Score is 3.5 times higher than that of the second-placed individual – the smallest such gap among the five leading political forces. Of note is the presence in the top ten of two of the young faces of the anti-government protests of late last year: Anna Bodakova (DB) and Petar Tanev (PP).
Another recognisable “Generation Z” figure, Malena Malcheva (PP), remains just outside the top 10 in 11th place. Although PP-DB is not the only political force to include youth protest leaders on its lists, only here do they receive such a visible role and high Influence Score.
The fact that Anna Bodakova received over 6,800 preferential votes and re-ordered the PP-DB list in the 24th Multi-Member Electoral District (MIR) suggests that this approach likely brought tangible benefits to the coalition.
As already noted, the Influence Score of DPS leader Delyan Peevski is formed exclusively from mentions of his name in comments by other politicians and media – a conclusion that holds true for the other politicians in the ranking as well.
Peevski’s influence is around 4.5 times higher than that of second-placed Kalin Stoyanov. The scores of Stoyanov and those following him – Yordan Tsonev and Stanislav Anastasov – are shaped largely by media coverage of and user reactions to their sharp accusations against the caretaker government.
Those ranked from sixth place downwards have significantly lower scores, with their names appearing most frequently in media publications shared on Facebook.
Vazrazhdane leader Kostadin Kostadinov has an Influence Score 4.5 times higher than the next-placed individual, Tsoncho Ganev.
Unlike PB, GERB-SDS, and PP-DB, where there is a relatively gradual decline in scores between 2nd and 10th place, within Vazrazhdane there is a significant gap (nearly 5 times) between second-placed Ganev and third-placed Tsveta Rangelova.
The popular journalist Martin Karbovski exerts considerable influence on the top ten, having published interviews, interview excerpts, and individual statements from eight of the politicians in the ranking during the monitoring period (Kostadinov, Ganev, Rangelova, Georgiev, Papazov, Parvanov, Slavchev, and Stoyanov).
The final two – Dimitar Panayotov and Stefan Petrov – are on Vazrazhdane’s lists as representatives of the Marxist-Leninist organisation Movement “23 September”, which promoted them in posts from its official profiles.
Controversy: What Are the Hot Topics of Conversation?
Another indicator by which we measure politicians’ social media presence is “controversy”.
Our ranking of the most controversial posts includes social media publications characterised by a negative tone and messaging that succeed in achieving wide reach and numerous shares.
This methodology frequently, though not always, places emphasis on posts from profiles with large numbers of followers.
Over the course of the official election campaign (20 March – 17 April), we tracked the most controversial posts on a daily basis.
On this occasion we chose to include in the study not only registered candidates for the National Assembly but also a broad range of politically connected individuals, media outlets, and influencers.
| Date | Platform | Author | Reach |
| March 20 | Asen Vasilev | 139 220 | |
| March 21 | Rumen Radev | 578 020 | |
| March 22 | Nikolay Popov | 8 602 | |
| March 23 | Kostadin Kostadinov | 652 300 | |
| March 24 | TikTok | mr when (satiric profile) | 277 848 |
| March 25 | Kostadin Kostadinov | 582 500 | |
| March 26 | Korneliya Ninova | 762 060 | |
| March 27 | dariknews.bg (on Minister Emil Dechev) | 198 940 | |
| March 28 | TikTok | darik.bg (quoting Radostin Vasilev) | 307 983 |
| March 29 | Rumen Radev | 77 963 | |
| March 30 | Rumen Radev | 273 100 | |
| March 31 | Vazrazhdane | 775 540 | |
| April 1 | Rumen Radev | 330 520 | |
| April 2 | Kostadin Kostadinov | 105 020 | |
| April 3 | Rumen Radev | 266 260 | |
| April 4 | Asen Vasilev | 97 520 | |
| April 5 | novini.bg (quoting Rumen Radev) | 22 600 | |
| April 6 | Nikolay Popov | 2 788 | |
| April 7 | Velichie (quoting Pavel Stoimenov) | 240 580 | |
| April 8 | Velichie (quoting Yordan Mitsikulev) | 31 580 | |
| April 9 | Rumen Radev | 149 800 | |
| April 10 | Kevork Kevorkyan | 44 560 | |
| April 11 | Asen Vasilev | 132 580 | |
| April 12 | Da, Bulgaria (quoting Anna Bodakova) | 81 660 | |
| April 13 | Asen Vasilev | 200 160 | |
| April 14 | Ima takuv narod | 144 440 | |
| April 15 | Kostadin Kostadinov | 128 040 | |
| April 16 | Rumen Radev | 365 760 | |
| April 17 | Rumen Radev | 1 228 880 |
The ranking demonstrates Facebook’s complete dominance among social media platforms.
Despite TikTok’s growing popularity, only two of the leading daily posts with controversial content come from that platform. As for the authors, the clear leader is Progressive Bulgaria leader Rumen Radev.
A total of eight of his posts top the daily controversy ranking, the main reason being the large number of followers his social media profiles attract and their high engagement levels.
The Radev posts that top the daily rankings most frequently contain accusations against previous governments and the parties within them, as well as declarations that Progressive Bulgaria is unwilling to enter into coalition with compromised partners.
The tone of the posts is sharp and categorical; PB’s political opponents are described as “the oligarchy”, “corrupt figures”, and “coalition-mongers”.
Accusations were levelled at the PP-DB coalition of having “destroyed the Constitution and attempting to corrupt the elections” (17 April), whilst DPS leader Delyan Peevski was described as “an ordinary oligarch who will be swept from the stage” (9 April).
Previous governments were also accused of having “invited inflation” through the “hasty adoption of the euro without any plan of action” (29 March).
Accusations were directed at the caretaker government over the signed agreement with Ukraine and at “some invented NGOs” in connection with the activation of the European mechanism for protection against hybrid influences.
This rhetoric corresponds to Rumen Radev’s positioning as a fierce critic of the existing political system. It is in keeping with Progressive Bulgaria’s declared intention to make no compromises and to exclude entirely all compromised political actors from government.
Whilst the extent to which a confrontational tone succeeds in mobilising additional voters cannot be fully assessed, it certainly reinforces and strengthens Radev’s image as a voice of popular indignation and a challenger to the status quo.
The other two party leaders who frequently adopt a confrontational tone in their posts are Asen Vasilev of We Continue the Change and Kostadin Kostadinov of Vazrazhdane.
The PP leader attacked GERB with accusations of corruption and theft (11 April), but also expressed doubts that, despite his sharp rhetoric, Rumen Radev was willing to work with “the oligarchs” (4 April).
Kostadinov, for his part, declared that the euro had been introduced in Bulgaria on the basis of “fabricated data” and promised that his party “will restore” the lev (25 March), and also called for the arrest and trial of those who signed the agreement with Ukraine (2 April).
The scandal on-air at Nova Televizia between the Vazrazhdane leader and presenter Lora Krumova was also used as the basis for a controversial post (23 March).
Prediction Markets: How Did They Forecast the Bulgarian Elections?
Prediction Markets for the Bulgarian Elections
During the official election campaign, we tracked the markets on the Polymarket prediction platform, where users could place bets on the election outcome.
Polymarket (alongside other prediction markets such as Kalshi) came to the fore in the run-up to the 2024 US presidential election as an alternative tool for gauging public sentiment.
The monitoring aimed to establish how well-suited this instrument is to Bulgarian political reality.
The total volume of the eight markets linked to the Bulgarian elections exceeded $1.66 million on the eve of the vote. This represents an increase of over 740% compared to the value of the markets at the start of the election campaign on 19 March, with the total volume of bets doubling in the final week alone.
Some markets showed no particular surprises – for example, those forecasting the outright winner of the elections, where Progressive Bulgaria led from the outset.
In other markets, however, the snapshot from the eve of election day reveals a certain tendency to underestimate Rumen Radev’s formation.
This market’s chart shows that, by the evening of 18 April, the most probable scenario (with a 43.5% probability) was for PB to win with a lead of between 10% and 15% over the second party.
The scenario of a margin of victory between 15% and 20% was rated second (36% probability). In reality, Progressive Bulgaria won with a lead of over 31% of the vote.
According to this market’s chart, the chances of GERB-SDS finishing in second place exceeded 95%.
In the event, the coalition led by Boyko Borisov did indeed finish second, but with a lead of just 0.8% over PP-DB. This indicates a far more contested battle than the market shares on Polymarket suggested.
Another market in which the forecasts for GERB-SDS’s electoral performance did not match the actual outcome was that for the number of parliamentary seats.
On the eve of the elections, the highest probability was assigned to the scenario in which the coalition wins between 50 and 54 seats in parliament, whilst in reality it received 39 mandates.
The chances of BSP-OL entering the next National Assembly also proved to be overestimated.
For much of the period immediately before the elections, the market rated the probability of this at least 50%, but in the end the left-wing coalition fell well short of the 4% threshold.
These discrepancies show that, whilst the “collective wisdom” of prediction market participants offers an interesting perspective on pre-election sentiment, it is not a perfect forecasting instrument.
On the one hand, the probabilities assigned to different forecast scenarios reflect the objective views of market participants and are, to a large degree, free of emotion and bias.
On the other hand, at least at this stage in Bulgaria, Polymarket users are few in number and belong to a comparatively limited demographic group.
Moreover, they frequently place their bets on the basis of information sources such as media coverage and opinion polls, which can potentially be incomplete or misleading.
Want to be the first to receive our analyses on similar key topics?
Fill in the form below and we will send you each new report as soon as it’s published.
