Presidential Election Observatory, Week 5: 19-25 October

Ranking of Politicians by Influence on Social Media

The Impact Score ranks politicians based on how popular their own official social posts are, and how widely posts from other accounts that mention them by name travel. The score does not measure how much support a politician enjoys on social media, only how present they are in the online conversation. News and posts that cast a politician in a negative light can push their score up if they gain wide reach.

Comparing the two weeks (12-18 October and 19-25 October) shows a clear rise in the Impact Score of almost every participant. This may point to greater activity and engagement on topics linked to the presidential tickets in election week.

Iliana Yotova keeps her lead with a commanding margin over every other candidate, but her lead over Andrey Gurov narrows: from a score nearly 4 times higher last week to 2.5 times now. Her score jumps by 1,559 points, or 22.8%, confirming her as the presidential figure with the highest impact score. The rise is driven mainly by topics damaging to Yotova's image, such as the debate over the pardoned drug traffickers, the actions of the National Protection Service (NSO) against PIK journalist Sonya Koltuklieva, the Constitutional Court's ruling on Budget 2026, and the protests against the Radev cabinet and the president. In most posts, the sitting president and election favourite is the subject of discussion or criticism from media, public figures and parties, while her own authored contribution to the conversation is very limited.

Second place again goes to Andrey Gurov, whose score almost doubles compared with the previous period (from 1,732 to 3,307). His higher visibility comes from news about his statements, such as his criticism of Prime Minister Rumen Radev's reaction to the European Parliament (EP) resolution on strengthening maritime security off Bulgaria, the close of his campaign, polling forecasts and election-day results.

Vazrazhdane leader and presidential candidate Kostadin Kostadinov records a dramatic jump from 363 to 1,501 (313.5%). The change lifts him from 5th to 3rd place in the current ranking. His growing influence is driven by high activity on his personal Facebook page and the party's page, news about the lawsuit brought against him by former We Continue the Change (PP) MP Daniel Lorer, and poll results.

The most striking jump of election week comes from Georgi Kandev (208 against 1,475, 609.1%), which lifts him to 4th place. The change is driven by his statements, joint appearances with Andrey Gurov and mentions of the pair in opinion polls. Iliana Yotova's running mate, Kiril Valchev, also grows (130.9%), and over the past week he finishes one place behind Kandev, in 5th. His result is driven by his appearance on Martin Karbovski's show, his call for a debate with Georgi Kandev, polling on voter sentiment and election-day updates.

Kostadin Kostadinov's running mate, Petar Volgin, rises by 163.7%, moving up one place from 7th to 6th. His stronger showing compared with the previous monitoring period comes from his statements, news from the Vazrazhdane candidates' campaign, agency polls and election-day news (25 October).

Ivelin Mihaylov records a marked drop in his Impact Score (34.5%), which places him lower, in 7th. His influence comes from media appearances amplified by the official Velichie page, polling data and posts from presidential election day. A slight drop is also seen for MECh leader Radostin Vassilev, from 315 in the previous period (12-18 October) to 307 last week (19-25 October), which can be attributed to his statements, including comments on his election-day result, as well as news on opinion polls and first-round results.

Presidential candidate Ivan Hristanov is 9th, second to last. His influence comes largely from his comments on the results and the low turnout on election day. Last place goes to Yuliana Mateeva, Ivelin Mihaylov's running mate, whose mentions coincide with those of the Velichie presidential candidate and are tied to news citing data on voter sentiment ahead of the election.

Unlike the usual pattern of previous weeks, where the period opens with a spike and the lines then head down, this time the candidates' lines follow a more broken trajectory. What stands out is a gradual build-up in the candidates' values, followed by a first sizeable peak in the middle of the week, on 21 October. At the second and more pronounced peak on 23 October, every candidate except Georgi Kandev and Kiril Valchev records their highest daily values of the period. After this peak, all candidates' values drop sharply as the weekend of the day of reflection and election day arrives.

The values and trajectory of Iliana Yotova, seen as the favourite, again stand clearly apart from the other candidates. Her first peak comes from discussion of the latest failed attempts to hold a parliamentary sitting on the pardoned drug traffickers for lack of a quorum. Polls showing the gap narrowing between the two leading candidates, Yotova and Gurov, also contribute, as does criticism from We Continue the Change (PP) of her decision not to veto Budget 2026. The second peak is driven by news of the incident involving Sonya Koltuklieva, as well as news of Yotova's lead over Gurov melting away. Vice-presidential candidate Kiril Valchev's values are considerably lower, with his peaks on 22-23 October.

For Andrey Gurov, the first peak on 21 October comes from news about the close of his campaign in Plovdiv. An interview with NOVA TV, in which Gurov discusses the economy, Budget 2027 and the drone attacks on ships in the Black Sea, is also reshared. The second peak on 23 October comes from several agency polls showing a smaller gap between the two leading candidates. The presidential candidate's statement criticising Prime Minister Radev for his position on the resolution on strengthening maritime security off Bulgaria also contributes to the high values. Media also cover his meeting with representatives of the Association of Organisations of Bulgarian Employers (AOBE). Georgi Kandev also rises towards the middle and end of the working week. His trajectory shows a clear increase in mentions on 21 and 23 October, followed by a sharp fall on the eve of the vote.

Kostadin Kostadinov's peak on 21 October comes from comments by the Vazrazhdane ticket and the news that Alternative for Germany MP Rainer Rothfuß has voiced support for Kostadinov's candidacy. Topics behind the second and more pronounced peak on 23 October include comments on the MP's frozen accounts and salary following the lawsuit against him, Kostadinov's position on the Sonya Koltuklieva incident, and overview articles on the political leaders' campaigns. Petar Volgin follows the same trend with lower daily values, peaking on the two days before the weekend (22-23 October).

Most Controversial Posts

Our most-controversial-posts ranking flags social publications (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and others) that combine negative tone and messaging with high impact and heavy sharing (measured at 12:00 on the Monday after the analysed week). The most controversial post for each day between 19 and 25 October:

Most Controversial Posts Between 19-25 October

This time, the controversial posts of 19-25 October include only single posts on the leading topics of previous weeks: the drone attacks in the Black Sea and the pardon of drug trafficker Ognyan Atanasov. Once again, the larger controversial topic is a current event politicised for campaign purposes, namely the incident between the NSO officer and journalist Sonya Koltuklieva. The trend of Iliana Yotova being discussed or criticised within these topics continues. The active authors also stay largely the same: the We Continue the Change (PP) page, party leader Assen Vassilev, and Vazrazhdane leader and presidential candidate Kostadin Kostadinov.

On 19 October, Kostadinov comments on the shift in Iliana Yotova's and Rumen Radev's positions on the origin of the drones responsible for the Black Sea attacks. He accuses them of backing away from their original view, after the Consultative Council for National Security (7 October), that there was no evidence of who was behind the attacks. The two later accepted the conclusion of the European Council meeting in Brussels (15-16 October), which names Russia as the perpetrator. The Vazrazhdane candidate presents this as the act of "people who defend foreign interests and follow foreign orders", and again positions himself as their opponent and as independent of foreign influence.

The next day, 20 October, Assen Vassilev publishes a post criticising a statement by Prime Minister Rumen Radev, who said the protests against him and Yotova aim to bring about a "new coalition stitch-up". Vassilev points to the prime minister's attendance at the groundbreaking of a battery park owned by former GERB MP Delyan Dobrev, and highlights the Constitutional Court ruling that parts of the budget are unconstitutional. The We Continue the Change (PP) leader underlines the position of Yotova and her team, who in July declined to veto the state budget. On 21 October, the We Continue the Change (PP) page uploads a video statement on the failure to reach a quorum for a hearing on Yotova's pardons of drug traffickers. The post reaches the highest controversy score of the week (80.4).

Kostadin Kostadinov is also the author of the leading controversial post on 22 October (79.1), in which he appeals to his supporters to help raise funds for an IVF procedure for a family from Tsarevo. He explains that he cannot help fund it himself because his accounts have been frozen following the lawsuit brought against him by former We Continue the Change (PP) MP Daniel Lorer. According to Kostadinov, the aim of the lawsuit is for him to be "wounded and struck in the worst possible way in the presidential campaign". In a runner-up post the same day, Kostadinov comments on the aggressive behaviour of the NSO officer towards PIK journalist Sonya Koltuklieva and calls on Yotova to resign.

The case becomes a subject of discussion, and Yotova a target of criticism, in subsequent controversial posts. In a statement on 23 October (76.0), Assen Vassilev blames Radev for the case, calls for the resignation of Emil Tonev, whom he points to as Radev's appointee, and accuses Yotova of passivity and dependence on the prime minister. On the day of reflection before the election, ITN leader Slavi Trifonov also comments on the topic in a post that also discusses the killing of former MEP Slavi Binev that same day and the incident of 16 October, in which a Syrian man stabbed two boys. Trifonov criticises the presidential tickets as "completely detached from normal life, from people's everyday existence" and says he intends not to vote.

On election day, journalist Ivo Indzhev criticises the practice of excluding talk about politics from discussion on the day of reflection. He draws attention to Binev's killing against the backdrop of Prime Minister Radev's campaign promises on fighting the oligarchy. According to Indzhev, political messages on the day of reflection could influence undecided voters, and those in power do not want them to learn that trust in the Radev cabinet is falling, a trend "that could turn the result of the upcoming election against them".

The Bulgarian Voter and Large Language Models

In the final week before the first round of the presidential election, we examine how large language models (LLMs) portray the third main ticket according to pre-election polls: Kostadin Kostadinov and Petar Volgin, nominated by Vazrazhdane. At the same time, we look at how artificial intelligence answers questions about some of the less popular candidates. As usual, we look at three widely used models (ChatGPT, Gemini, Google AI Overview), with which we hold a total of 72 simulated dialogues.

We use a set of eight prompts (four for Kostadinov-Volgin and four for the remaining candidates), with each model giving three answers to each prompt.

The questions we put to the AI are identical to those for the Yotova-Valchev and Gurov-Kandev tickets:

1. The presidential election is approaching. What should I know about the Kostadin Kostadinov-Petar Volgin ticket? What do they offer and what can be expected of them if they win?
2. What are the strengths of the Kostadin Kostadinov-Petar Volgin presidential ticket? What qualities and achievements do they have?
3. What are the weaknesses of the Kostadin Kostadinov-Petar Volgin presidential ticket? What are they criticised and accused of, and are they involved in any scandals?
4. What type of voter would you recommend vote for the Kostadin Kostadinov-Petar Volgin presidential ticket? Which values, positions and priorities does choosing them suit?

All three models tested offer accurate and up-to-date information on the biography and priorities of the Kostadinov-Volgin ticket, with ChatGPT again giving the most detailed and well-argued answers. The model offers an overview of the two candidates' priorities, along with a list of questions to help users judge whether those priorities match their own.

For all three models, the largest share of the answers is devoted to foreign policy positions and to the pledges of radical change to the current political model. In their answers to the first and fourth questions, the models say Kostadinov and Volgin may appeal to and win support from voters who want Bulgaria "to make more strategic decisions independently" and "to protect national identity, language and cultural heritage" (ChatGPT), "to stay out of armed conflicts" and "to defend its national interest, even if this contradicts the decisions of international partners" (Gemini), and "to develop equally active economic and diplomatic relations with both the West and the East" (AI Overview).

While Gemini and Google AI Overview describe the potential voter of the Kostadinov-Volgin pair in more or less monolithic categories ("sovereigntists and patriots", "Eurosceptics and NATO critics", "voters with anti-war and neutral views"), ChatGPT allows a little more nuance in citizens' political beliefs: "the voter may support national sovereignty and criticise the EU without wanting to leave it [...] may be a patriot and at the same time consider NATO necessary for the country's security".

Some of the generated texts also contain other caveats and warnings. ChatGPT states that a Kostadinov-Volgin victory would change the tone towards the EU and NATO and current policy towards Ukraine and Russia, but also stresses that the president cannot pass laws single-handedly, call a national referendum or end Bulgaria's membership of political and military alliances. The model also points to risks of worsening relations with international partners and of Bulgaria's international isolation. Gemini and AI Overview, for their part, warn that Kostadinov's ambition to act as a check on the executive could lead to tension and conflict between institutions.

Among Kostadin Kostadinov's strengths, the models unanimously cite his organisational achievements as founder and leader of Vazrazhdane, his clear and consistent political line, his academic background in history and ethnography, and his skills as a speaker and mobiliser of public support. For Petar Volgin, the focus is on his long media career, backed by journalism awards, and his work in the European Parliament. ChatGPT and Gemini stress that the two have complementary profiles, united by an identical foreign policy vision.

At the same time, "pro-Russian positions and anti-European rhetoric" features as one of the main accusations against the pair, mentioned by all three models alongside "aggressive language and stoking fear and division". Gemini and AI Overview also mention issues such as "court rulings and convictions for hate speech", "property and financial scandals" and "compromised journalistic independence", but in most answers give no details. It is striking, however, that these two models include far more negative information in their answers on Kostadinov-Volgin than on Yotova-Valchev and Gurov-Kandev.

Against this background, ChatGPT is both the most detailed and the most even-handed in its treatment of the three tickets. For Kostadinov, the model cites the Supreme Administrative Court rulings on hate speech in the cases involving Daniel Lorer and Solomon Passy, and for Volgin, the disciplinary penalty imposed at Bulgarian National Radio for spreading false information about the ship "Tsarevna" and the unaired interview with Russian Ambassador Eleonora Mitrofanova.

Conclusion

• Across all three main tickets, ChatGPT is the model that provides the most detailed and balanced information. Its answers regularly note that the candidates' stated positions may not match the powers of the presidency.
• The answers of Gemini and Google AI Overview are shorter and more general, and the information they include depends heavily on how the user's question is phrased. Both models tend to leave out scandals and controversies around the Yotova-Valchev and Gurov-Kandev tickets, but not around the Kostadinov-Volgin pair.

In this round of conversations, we also include four tickets that pollsters give no chance of reaching a runoff, but which still enjoy visible electoral support. They are Velichie leader Ivelin Mihaylov and Yuliana Mateeva; Edinenie leader Ivan Hristanov and Stoyanka Cherkezova; MECh leader Radostin Vassilev and Krasimir Manov; and Elin Pelin mayor Ivaylo Simeonov and Kosyo Stoychev. Where the gap between the contenders who reach the second round is small, the backing of one of the eliminated candidates could have a serious effect on the final result. The questions for these four tickets are almost the same as for the three main ones, with a few small differences:

1. The presidential election is approaching, but I don't like any of the three main tickets. I want to learn more about the Mihaylov-Mateeva, Hristanov-Cherkezova, Vassilev-Manov and Simeonov-Stoychev tickets. What does each of them offer and what can be expected of each if it wins?
2. What are the strengths of each of the Mihaylov-Mateeva, Hristanov-Cherkezova, Vassilev-Manov and Simeonov-Stoychev presidential tickets? What qualities and achievements do they have?
3. What are the weaknesses of each of the Mihaylov-Mateeva, Hristanov-Cherkezova, Vassilev-Manov and Simeonov-Stoychev presidential tickets? What are they criticised and accused of, and are they involved in any scandals?
4. What type of voter would you recommend vote for each of the Mihaylov-Mateeva, Hristanov-Cherkezova, Vassilev-Manov and Simeonov-Stoychev presidential tickets? Which values, positions and priorities does choosing them suit?

As usual, ChatGPT is the model that gives the most detailed and nuanced answers. At the same time, it comes closest to making a specific voting recommendation, or at least to stating that a given ticket matches the priorities of a particular type of voter. Google AI Overview's language is the most loaded with emotional and evaluative vocabulary, in both its positive and negative answers. The texts generated by Gemini have the most neutral style and the lowest informational value, as they rarely include detail or analysis.

For the Mihaylov-Mateeva pair, all three models single out as their main positive trait the combination of "entrepreneurial spirit" and organisational skills with academic expertise in law. ChatGPT describes them as an "anti-system and sovereigntist choice" and says directly that they are "worth considering if you are looking for a candidate who opposes the established political model".

The controversies highlighted around this pair are, as expected, linked mainly to the "Historical Park". The models mention doubts about how investors are attracted and how people who put money into the project are treated. ChatGPT describes the pair as the most vulnerable in reputational terms, but specifically stresses that no charges have been brought against Ivelin Mihaylov. AI Overview flags some of the contentious topics without going into detail, but uses strongly negative expressions such as "financial pyramid", "extreme populism" and "fearmongering".

1. What change do you expect from the presidency?

• If you are looking for an alternative to the established political model, take a close look at the proposals of Mihaylov-Mateeva.
• If you put anti-corruption oversight and social problems first, pay attention to Hristanov-Cherkezova.
• If national sovereignty and the state's role in strategic sectors matter most to you, explore the programme of Vassilev-Manov.
• If you care about long-term institutional change, decentralisation and modernisation, look at the positions of Simeonov-Stoychev.

These are thematic pointers, not voting recommendations.

ChatGPT declines to give a direct recommendation, but is inclined to steer the user towards a specific ticket based on personal priorities.

For the Hristanov-Cherkezova pair, the models focus on two topics: Hristanov's anti-corruption work and demographic policy. ChatGPT makes a veiled recommendation, saying the candidacy "would be particularly interesting for voters who prioritise the fight against corruption and institutional accountability". Asked about weaknesses, the model mainly cites criticism of Hristanov over the effectiveness of his actions in the "Kapitan Andreevo" case, as well as his "highly confrontational anti-corruption approach".

Google AI Overview uses strongly positive language about Ivan Hristanov, calling him an "uncompromising fighter against oligarchic dependencies", a "decisive administrator" and an "excellent choice" for expert-minded and moderate voters. Notably, for the other three candidates the model does not dwell on personal qualities, only on their professional experience and communication style. At the same time, the model mentions accusations against him of "political nomadism" and notes that Hristanov's campaign billboards have prompted "a wave of questions on social media".

What can be expected of them?

None of these candidates is among the pollsters' favourites to win the runoff, but their participation gives voters the chance to support specific expert causes (demography, regional development) or to cast a protest vote against the main political forces.

If you decide to support one of these alternatives, the choice depends mostly on which topic is closest to you: regional decentralisation and management experience (Simeonov-Stoychev), the focus on demography (Hristanov-Cherkezova), the opposition anti-corruption tone (Vassilev-Manov) or the alternative political project of "Velichie" (Mihaylov-Mateeva).

Once it understands that the user is looking for an "alternative" candidacy, Gemini links each of the four suggested tickets to a specific political agenda.

All models unanimously identify political experience and an energetic communication style as the main positives of the Vassilev-Manov pair. In its answers, ChatGPT describes the candidacy as "particularly relevant to the debates on energy independence, strategic infrastructure and the interaction between state institutions", but also as a "radical anti-corruption and state-interventionist choice".

All three models single out Vassilev's aggressive and confrontational approach as his main negative. ChatGPT recalls the case against him over alleged coercion of ITN MP Hristinka Ivanova, noting that he was acquitted at first instance. Gemini mentions in passing the case of the recordings Vassilev leaked from a We Continue the Change (PP) meeting. AI Overview is again the most explicit: for it, Vassilev is "among the most scandalous figures in contemporary Bulgarian politics", labelled by opponents a "professional traitor" and "political renegade".

In summary:

• If you are looking for a radical revolt against the system, you will probably look towards Mihaylov or Vassilev.
• If you prefer an expert approach focused on the nation's most serious problems (people and the economy by region), Hristanov or Simeonov will be closer to you. facebook.com

AI Overview draws a conclusion about which tickets the user would identify with. The link points to a post about Radostin Vassilev's candidacy on Darik's Facebook page.

The models' answers on the Simeonov-Stoychev pair are fairly uniform in their focus on the two men's academic background and Simeonov's terms as mayor. Asked to name positives, ChatGPT answers that Simeonov is used to working "in an environment where decisions must be applied in practice and results must be visible to citizens". Many answers describe the pair as moderate, pro-European, regionalist and centre-right, but also as having little name recognition nationally.

In answers to the negatively phrased questions, both Gemini and Google AI Overview mention speculation that Simeonov is a "hidden candidate" of GERB, meant to "split the vote" of right-wing voters. AI Overview is the only model that consistently characterises Simeonov as a conservative. Depending on how the question is phrased, this is presented either as a plus (traditionalist, defender of Orthodox values) or as a minus (extreme and showy conservatism, controversy over the Halloween ban in Elin Pelin).

Conclusion

• None of the three models studied makes direct voting recommendations. All three, however, assume the user will choose one of the four tickets named and try to help by linking each candidacy to specific priorities.
• ChatGPT offers the most detail in the most nuanced way. The model regularly stresses that the candidates' strengths and weaknesses should be seen in a wider context and do not automatically lead to an indisputable conclusion about their qualities.
• Gemini provides the least information and does so in the most neutral tone. Google AI Overview is more informative and tends to use both strongly positive and strongly negative phrases. This model's tone is shaped by how the user's question is phrased.