Fake Pollsters Undermine Trust in US Midterm Election Data

Experts are sounding the alarm that fabricated polling operations could significantly erode public trust in election data, particularly during the United States midterm election period. Recent revelations indicate that a number of fraudulent firms have disseminated fictitious results, some of which have been amplified by news outlets and polling trackers. This raises serious concerns about the ease with which false information can gain credibility and be used to cast doubt on the integrity of the electoral process. When these bad actors are exposed, their existence can be exploited to undermine voter confidence in election information more broadly.

A recent instance occurred when Wedgewood Polls issued a social media statement admitting its statistics for several battleground states, including Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Kansas, and Maine, were fabricated. Wedgewood characterized its actions as an "experimental project" aimed at exposing the "vulnerabilities, lack of oversight and overall low barrier to entry" within the US polling industry. The firm stated, "Having previously worked in the polling and research sector, we watched as the public’s trust in polling eroded alongside a rise in unverified, low-quality methodology." They justified their false data as a test to determine how readily fabricated polling could gain traction among voters and the media, concluding, "The short answer: Far too easy." However, Wedgewood's admission came after its surveys had already permeated the political information ecosystem and reached prominent media organizations like The New York Times.

This incident marks the second such scandal in the 2026 election cycle, following the exposure of Median Strategies in August, which also admitted to faking results as a "short-term social experiment." In the increasingly polarized US political landscape, these events have unsettled the polling industry and the public, who are struggling to navigate a constantly evolving information environment.

How Fake Polls Gained Credibility

Wedgewood, established in June, published surveys covering competitive races across multiple states, attracting attention from political campaigns, commentators, and polling data aggregators. The New York Times reported that its polling tracker had listed 15 Wedgewood surveys between June and October before subsequently removing them. The newspaper explained that Wedgewood had initially provided answers regarding its personnel, methodology, and funding before its results were included. While the Times clarified that Wedgewood's surveys were not integrated into its own presidential approval or national congressional polling averages, the case highlighted a vulnerability in the process by which polling information is deemed credible.

Polling aggregators play a crucial role in helping journalists and voters interpret a multitude of surveys by compiling results from various research organizations. Their effectiveness relies on distinguishing reliable research from poorly executed or fraudulent work. Wedgewood's success in bypassing some of these checks suggests that mere transparency on paper does not guarantee that research was conducted as claimed. According to FiftyPlusOne, a polling and forecasting website that investigated the firm, inconsistencies in raw data and technical identifiers associated with survey responses raised suspicions about its authenticity, prompting Wedgewood to admit most of its results were fabricated. While Wedgewood denies intentionally misleading the public, some pollsters, like data journalist G Elliott Morris involved in the FiftyPlusOne probe, suspect more nefarious motives, stating, "We were investigating Wedgewood for faking their data. They are trying to cover up for their fraud with the ‘we were doing a social experiment’ excuse."

How Fake Polling Has Impacted Elections

The repercussions of fake polling extend beyond the industry itself. Mallory McMorrow, who ran unsuccessfully in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary, asserted that a Wedgewood survey showing her with single-digit support negatively impacted her campaign. McMorrow stated the poll demoralized her volunteers and led journalists to repeatedly question her viability in the race, causing donations to dwindle as Democratic supporters shifted their investments elsewhere. In a social media post, McMorrow described the Wedgewood poll, alongside one from Mitchell Research and Communications, as a "one-two punch" that "killed her campaign." She suspended her Senate bid in July, explaining, "By that point, we took a risk and we spend our money. We put our ads up. They were working. But the damage was done. And I was drowned out by outside spending and the narrative that we had completely collapsed." Experts believe McMorrow's experience exemplifies a broader issue: even inaccurate polls can influence the decisions of individuals who perceive them as legitimate measures of public opinion.

Why It Matters

The Wedgewood controversy underscores how fraudulent data can become a weapon in an already polarized political environment. Researchers at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public tracked the spread of discussions about Wedgewood's admission across social media. Initially, the conversation was confined to polling experts and election data enthusiasts. However, the story gained traction among influential political commentators and partisan accounts. Some discussions highlighted the fact that prominent outlets and polling aggregators had published Wedgewood's results, while others used the revelation to question the validity of polling in general, particularly surveys indicating Democratic competitiveness in close races. The researchers observed that the controversy became conflated with claims that polling systematically misleads voters or understates support for certain political parties. Their analysis noted, "Within 24 hours, the right-wing media ecosystem had succeeded in drawing attention to the story and setting some of the most salient frames: that poll numbers around the midterms, especially poll numbers favoring Democrats, cannot be trusted."

President Donald Trump, who has frequently made unsubstantiated claims about US election integrity, leveraged these revelations to criticize The New York Times for including Wedgewood's surveys in its polling tracker. Trump posted on Truth Social, "The New York Times got caught. Everything about The Failing New York Times is ‘ARTIFICIAL.’" He also suggested the Wedgewood case strengthened his $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the Times, adding, "Our powerful Lawsuit against them is getting stronger and stronger everyday."

What Can Be Done?

Currently, no specific laws in the US criminalize the publication of fake polls outright. However, some advocacy groups and legal scholars argue that disseminating fake polls could be prosecuted under federal laws related to commodities and wire fraud. Tyler Yeargain, writing for the Missouri Law Review in 2020, argued that enforcement of election-related laws against fake pollsters has been underutilized and that "Prosecution would serve a strong federal interest... It is instead to deter other wrongdoers, the sort who would weaponize fake polls to manipulate elections."

Brendan Carr, Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has noted a "significant surge" in fake polls during the 2026 midterms and urged networks not to amplify them, warning they could risk their operating licenses. Carr stated on social media, "Broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their federal licenses from engaging in News Distortion or promoting Broadcast Hoaxes. It is important that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations." Conversely, the FCC's sole Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, disagreed, stating, "Pollsters who intentionally mislead the public should answer for it, but broadcasters who report publicly available polling data should never be punished when a poll is wrong. FCC rules on news distortion or hoaxes do not apply to a station that reports this data in good faith."

In the absence of clear legal recourse against fake polls, experts emphasize that the responsibility falls on media outlets and voters to critically evaluate the quality of election data they encounter. Mark Baldassare, survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), suggests methods for distinguishing credible surveys from unreliable ones. "Look for transparency," Baldassare advised PPIC's Stephanie Barton. "A credible survey will list its mission, the purpose of its polling, and its sponsors or funders." He added, "A poll guided by partisan groups or campaigns that is publicly released may have a message to relay to the public."