Fake Polls Expose Vulnerabilities in US Midterm Election Data

Earlier this month, a firm called Wedgewood Polls posted a statement on social media admitting that its survey numbers for a string of battleground states, among them Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Kansas and Maine, were fake. It called the work an experimental project meant to expose the weak oversight and low barrier to entry in American polling. The account that carried the statement has since been deleted.

By then, the numbers had already travelled. Wedgewood launched in June and published surveys on competitive races in several states, drawing attention from campaigns, commentators and organisations that compile polling data. The New York Times said its polling tracker had listed 15 Wedgewood surveys between June and October, and removed them after the admission. The paper said the firm had answered questions about its personnel, methodology and funding before being included. It added that the surveys never fed into its own presidential approval or national congressional averages.

Wedgewood said it had once worked in polling and research and had watched public trust erode as unverified, low-quality methods spread. It framed its fake data as a test of how easily fabricated polling could gain traction with voters and media. Its answer, it said, was that it was far too easy. It is the second such case this cycle: in August, another operation, Median Strategies, acknowledged faking results as a short-term social experiment.

Not everyone accepts the experiment explanation. FiftyPlusOne, a polling and forecasting website, investigated the firm, and inconsistencies in the raw data and in the technical identifiers attached to survey responses raised its suspicions. That probe preceded Wedgewood's admission. Data journalist G Elliott Morris, who took part, said his team was investigating Wedgewood for faking data and that the firm is using the social-experiment line to cover for fraud.

The harm, by one candidate's account, was concrete. Mallory McMorrow, who lost Michigan's Democratic Senate primary, says a Wedgewood poll putting her support in single digits damaged her campaign. Her volunteers were demoralised, journalists kept asking whether she should quit, and donors turned to other campaigns. She called that poll and one from Mitchell Research and Communications a one-two punch that killed her campaign. She suspended her bid in July. She wrote that her campaign had spent its money and put up ads that were working, but that outside spending and a narrative of collapse drowned her out.

The aftermath also became political. Researchers at the University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public traced the conversation online. It began among polling experts and election-data followers, then spread to influential commentators and partisan accounts. Some focused on prominent outlets having listed the results; others used the episode to doubt polling generally, especially surveys showing Democrats competitive. The center wrote that within 24 hours the right-wing media ecosystem had set frames holding that midterm polls, especially those favouring Democrats, cannot be trusted. President Donald Trump, who has regularly made false claims about election integrity, posted that the Times got caught and that everything about it is artificial. He said his $15bn defamation suit against the paper was getting stronger.

There is no US law that outright criminalises fake polls. Some advocacy groups and legal scholars argue that publishing them amounts to commodities and wire fraud. Tyler Yeargain wrote in the Missouri Law Review in 2020 that enforcement had not been fully utilised and that prosecution would serve a strong federal interest in deterring those who would weaponise fake polls.

FCC chair Brendan Carr said there has been a significant surge in fake polls during the 2026 midterms and urged broadcasters not to amplify them, warning that news distortion and broadcast hoaxes can jeopardise licences. The commission's sole Democrat, Anna Gomez, disagreed: pollsters who deliberately mislead should answer for it, she wrote, but broadcasters reporting public polling in good faith should not be punished when a poll is wrong.

Without a legal remedy, the burden falls on outlets and voters. Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California advises looking for transparency: a credible survey lists its mission, purpose and sponsors. Wedgewood's passing of such checks on paper is exactly what the episode puts in question, and the fight over legal remedies and FCC pressure is likely to continue through the midterms.