How one version of AI sees the 2026 race for governor of New York

As we near the calendar flipping to 2026 a great deal of political attention will be focusing on the race for governor of New York.  There are potential primaries on the horizon for the Democrats and the Republicans, but party leaders expect when all is said and done that the November election ballot will present voters with a contest between Kathy Hochul and Elise Stefanik.

My email inbox these days is flooded with stories about Artificial Intelligence.  Who is getting rich with AI?  How will AI diminish employment?  How can AI harm normal and important human interaction?  Etc., etc. etc.

So why not give it a shot about politics?  I signed up for temporary, free access to ChatGPT and asked for an assessment of the 2026 race for governor of New York, focusing on the party frontrunners, incumbent Democrat Kathy Hochul and Republican Elise Stefanik.  Here’s what ChatGPT reported, totally unedited:

Below is a focused electability analysis of a general election matchup between Gov. Kathy Hochul and Rep. Elise Stefanik in New York’s 2026 gubernatorial race, broken down by voting blocs, geography, turnout dynamics, and structural advantages.

 Geographic Electability

New York City (≈40% of statewide vote)

Decisive advantage: Hochul

  • Democrats routinely win NYC by 30–50-point margins.
  • Stefanik’s Trump alignment is a major liability here.
  • Hochul doesn’t need enthusiasm—just baseline Democratic turnout.

Verdict: Hochul wins overwhelmingly; Stefanik damage control only

Suburbs (Long Island, Westchester, Rockland)

Key battleground—but still Hochul-favored

  • These voters decide New York statewide elections.
  • Stefanik must:
    • Cut Democratic margins dramatically
    • Win college-educated independents
  • Hochul’s suburban weakness (crime, taxes) helps Stefanik—but not enough alone.

Verdict: Hochul likely wins suburbs narrowly; Stefanik needs a political wave.

Upstate & Rural New York

Stefanik stronghold

  • Stefanik dominates rural counties and small cities.
  • High margins here help—but population limits upside.
  • Hochul still wins many upstate urban centers (Buffalo, Rochester, Albany).

Verdict: Stefanik wins region big—but not big enough to offset NYC.

Demographic Coalitions

Women Voters

  • Hochul: strong with suburban and college-educated women.
  • Stefanik: competitive with conservative women, weaker with moderates.

Edge: Hochul

Black, Latino, and Asian Voters

  • Democrats dominate these blocs in NY.
  • Stefanik struggles to reach double digits in NYC minority precincts.

Edge: Hochul (decisive)

Independents

  • Tend to lean Democratic in NY gubernatorial races.
  • Stefanik’s national profile hurts crossover appeal.

Edge: Hochul

 Money, Messaging & Machinery

Hochul

  • Massive fundraising advantage.
  • Labor unions and Democratic institutions power turnout.
  • Can define Stefanik early as “too extreme for New York.”

Stefanik

  • Strong national donor base.
  • Heavy outside spending likely—but mostly defensive.
  • Messaging constrained by primary rhetoric.

Structural edge: Hochul

 Turnout vs. Persuasion

  • New York is turnout-driven, not persuasion-driven.
  • Hochul wins if:
    • NYC turnout is normal
    • Suburbs don’t revolt
  • Stefanik must:
    • Suppress Democratic turnout and
    • Overperform with independents

That’s a very narrow path.

 Electability Summary

Factor Advantage
State Partisan Lean Hochul
NYC Vote Hochul (huge)
Suburbs Hochul (modest)
Upstate Stefanik
Minority Voters Hochul
Fundraising Hochul
Turnout Infrastructure Hochul

 Bottom Line

In a Hochul vs. Stefanik general election:

  • Hochul is clearly favored, likely by high single digits to low double digits under normal conditions.
  • Stefanik can only win if:
    • Democratic turnout collapses in NYC, and
    • Suburbs swing sharply right, and
    • The national environment is strongly Republican.

That combination is possible but unlikely in New York.

So how does that sound?

So there you have it, at least as one AI provider sees it.  All the logical pieces of the political puzzle are placed on the board to see.

Many Hochul supporters will likely see the upcoming election much the same as this AI analysis sees it.  I am sure that Stefanik fans see it much differently.  I don’t think I can check on the party affiliation of ChatGPT.  They are probably not registered to vote – yet!

We can save this AI analysis to compare with the real results in about ten and a half months.

Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, and Happy New Year

Politics and Other Stuff will be off duty for the weeks of December 22nd and December 29thand will return to your inbox on January 6, 2026.  Wishing you a happy and healthy holiday season!

Bluesky  @kenkruly

Twitter/X  @kenkruly

Threads   kenkruly

Related articles

Epstein girlfriend’s diary reveals rare glimpse of disgraced billionaire: ‘A little boy’



Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend revealed a rare glimpse inside the late financier and convicted child offender's life — and how he manipulated women "for connections, for money and for social capital."

Patricia Schmidt, who was a 23-year-old working at Bear Stearns, shared pages from her diary with The New York Times Magazine and, for the first time, spoke publicly about her relationship with Epstein. Schmidt first interacted with Epstein after her boss sent her to his home in 1987.

The diary contains descriptions of her life, the couple's interactions and moments together from the 1980s.

In one remembrance, Epstein had apparently confused Schmidt's mother, whose maiden name was Arlene Dahl, with a former Hollywood starlet with the same name. But that wasn't actually the case and Schmidt never corrected him. In May 1987, he apparently found out and then called her at work to chastise her over it.

"It was terribly awkward," she said. "He sort of felt played."

By February 1988, Schmidt arrived at Epstein's apartment at 1 a.m. where he was on the phone with Eva Andersson, his longtime girlfriend that friends have said "was the love of his life." He lied to Andersson, telling her that he was receiving work materials and passed the phone to Schmidt to try and "back him up."

"Schmidt perceived it as a power play by Epstein, who was seeking not only to appease Andersson but also to show Schmidt that she was not his top priority — and that he was in control of both," according to The Times.

The dynamics between the two and diary entries show the unique ways Epstein attempted to use this "relationship for his advantage."

"On a number of occasions, Schmidt described in her diary how she and Epstein had sex. But other times, she noted his preference for cuddling or kissing on the cheek. 'He was like a little boy almost,'" she said.

In July 1989, Schmidt told Epstein that a married colleague said he liked her. She initially told him in an effort "to remind him of my value" and that another man was interested in her.

But that backfired.

"His response was that Schmidt was being naïve if she thought the man was looking for anything other than sex," according to The Times. "In the diary, Schmidt berated herself for having hurt Epstein."

"In the end, though, she was the one feeling guilty — a sign that Epstein still had the upper hand," The Times reported.

What Trump has said about Project 2025 over the years: A timeline

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump distanced himself from Project 2025. Now his administration is enacting many of its proposals.

FactChecking Trump’s Economic Speech

In a campaign-style rally in Pennsylvania on Dec. 9,...

‘Good to See You!’ MTG’s Boyfriend Back in the White House Asking Trump Friendly Questions

Brian Glenn was back to asking President Donald Trump questions Wednesday amid the president's feud with Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

The post ‘Good to See You!’ MTG’s Boyfriend Back in the White House Asking Trump Friendly Questions first appeared on Mediaite.