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

Trump-backed Jay Feely wins GOP primary in Arizona’s battleground 1st District

The former football player faces a steep challenge in November, with Democrats bullish about flipping the open seat.

Headlines for July 28, 2026

France and Spain Brace for Another Heat Wave While...

Big Picture PRIME with guest Mickey Kearns Jul 2026

Big Picture PRIME with guest Mickey Kearns Jul 2026

‘Chaos’ at Trump’s ‘mega master’ court renders judges and defendants ‘terrified’: Report



The Trump administration's newly launched "mega master" court system has quickly devolved into mass chaos that leaves defendants, guards, lawyers and judges "terrified," according to a new report.

"Attorneys and former judges say mega master hearings serve as the latest tool for the Trump administration to deport large numbers of people," the Chicago Sun-Times reported Friday. "This time by causing chaos and confusion in the courts."

Courtroom 11 at Chicago's immigration court barely seats 25 people — but one July morning saw 60 people, mostly unrepresented asylum seekers, crammed in wall-to-wall by 9:10 a.m., the Sun-Times reported.

This is a "mega master" calendar hearing, a new procedural format instituted by the Trump administration at the end of May that packs between 100 and 185 people into a single judge's morning docket — up from an average of just 30 before the change.

Chicago's courthouse at 55 E. Monroe has logged more of these mass hearings than any other immigration court in the country, according to immigration scholar Austin Kocher.

The scale has created conditions former immigration judges call dangerous.

On days when multiple mega hearings are scheduled simultaneously, hundreds of people — including families with strollers — spill into hallways narrower than an adult's arm span, waiting for hours to be called.

On one recent Thursday, roughly 200 people queued in the heat outside courtrooms designed to hold a fraction of that number.

"This is not good," one guard was overheard saying. Former judges have raised concerns that the overcrowded hallways amount to a fire hazard.

Attorneys and former judges argue the hearings serve to discourage immigrants from showing up at all, then fast-tracking deportations for those who don't.

In June, for the first time since 2019, more immigrants missed their Chicago court dates than attended — 58 percent of the 10,370 people summoned nationwide in June were marked absent, according to data from the nonprofit Mobile Pathways. Missing court can trigger an automatic in absentia deportation order.

Compounding the pressure, notice periods have collapsed. Median lead time for a Chicago hearing fell to just 34 days in June, down from 229 days in May.

The Justice Department, which oversees immigration courts, says the expanded scheduling is meant to clear long-standing backlogs.

But former judge Elizabeth Treacy, who resigned in June after presiding over three mega hearings with up to 150 people each, said the volume makes errors — and injustice — nearly inevitable.

She noted that indigenous asylum seekers with limited Spanish fluency are especially unlikely to speak up when they don't understand proceedings in a crowded, intimidating room.

“It’s not a coincidence, but another tactic to facilitate deportations,” said Stephanie Spiro, an attorney with the National immigration Justice Center.

“It’s much more efficient for the government to deport people without even having to read any briefs, without having to have a full hearing, without having to schedule hundreds of people, and actually listen to their claims, and afford them due process.”

That fear caused Carolina, an immigrant from Venezuela who just gave birth, to question whether she should show up for her hearing.

She and her husband eventually decided to risk deportation and bring their three children to court.

“I was terrified," she said.