Fake Polling Scandal Rocks Midterms: Wedgewood Polls Admits Its Numbers Were Fabricated

Less than two weeks before the 2026 midterm elections, the polling industry has been hit by a scandal that cuts to the heart of how campaigns, media outlets, and voters understand the races. An outfit calling itself Wedgewood Polls admitted on social media on Tuesday that most of its published results were not legitimate polling at all, but rather an experiment designed to expose what it called serious problems with how polls are conducted and reported. The admission has riled Democrats in particular, because Wedgewood's fabricated numbers played a direct role in one of the most consequential Democratic primaries of the cycle — the Michigan Senate primary — and because the numbers were picked up and treated as real by major polling aggregators and national media outlets.

"The polling industry needs major reform," the Wedgewood Polls account declared, describing itself as "an experimental project to demonstrate the vulnerabilities, lack of oversight, and overall low barrier to entry in the modern political polling industry." The firm said that despite having no history, formal credentials, or real data behind the vast majority of its releases, it was added to major polling aggregators, including The New York Times, FiftyPlusOne, and VoteHub, and was repeatedly treated as a legitimate data source.

"Our fabricated numbers were given instant credibility across national media platforms — including being cited on air and in reporting by outlets such as MS Now," the statement continued. The organization said it conducted one real poll in Nebraska, but that the rest of its releases were not genuine.

The fallout has been immediate and personal. Former Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Mallory McMorrow, whose campaign she says was damaged by the bogus numbers, responded within hours. And the scandal has renewed a broader debate about polling reliability at exactly the moment when polls are shaping expectations about whether Democrats will retake the House and possibly the Senate on November 3.

How Fake Numbers Entered the Mainstream

The most alarming part of the Wedgewood admission is not that a fake pollster existed. It is how easily its numbers traveled. According to the firm's own statement, its releases were added to major polling aggregators — the databases that journalists, campaigns, and analysts use to track races — without anyone verifying that the firm had conducted real surveys, employed real pollsters, or followed any methodology at all.

"How easy is it for an entirely fabricated polling firm to gain traction, be taken seriously, and expose how little scrutinization exists in media commentary?" Wedgewood Polls asked in its statement. "The short answer: Far too easy."

That claim is difficult to dispute on the available evidence. The firm's numbers were not confined to obscure corners of the internet. They were cited on air and in reporting by national outlets, and they were folded into the averages and models that shape the conventional wisdom about races. Once a fabricated number enters an aggregator, it can move a polling average, influence a forecast, and shape the narrative about who is winning — all without a single voter ever being surveyed.

The episode also exposes a structural weakness in modern political coverage. Polling aggregators compete to include as many polls as possible, and newsrooms under deadline pressure often treat an aggregator's listing as a seal of legitimacy. When a firm with no track record can clear that bar, the bar itself is the problem. Wedgewood's statement was explicit on this point: the experiment was designed to demonstrate "the vulnerabilities, lack of oversight, and overall low barrier to entry" in the industry.

The Michigan Primary: A Campaign Derailed

The human cost of the experiment is clearest in Michigan, where Wedgewood's numbers helped shape the Democratic Senate primary. Former state senator Mallory McMorrow, who was running for the Democratic nomination, said she was a direct victim of the bogus polling.

"As one of the candidates featured in these polls — the infamous one in late June that showed me plummeting into single digits (which was at odds with our internals) – here's the impact of this 'experiment,'" McMorrow wrote on X.

McMorrow went on to describe the consequences in stark terms: her donations dried up, her "devastated" volunteers panicked, and the media bombarded her with calls to drop out of the race. She did drop out, on July 5.

"Sure, a point was proven," McMorrow continued. "Polling is broken. But tens of thousands of people poured their hearts, time, energy, hard-earned money into something they believed in — for a year-and-a-half, and it was treated like a game. Our volunteers gave their all. And then some. I felt like I had let so many of them down."

Wedgewood's numbers were also used to make a broader argument in the primary: that progressive Abdul El-Sayed polled the best against the then-likely Republican nominee, former Representative Mike Rogers, while McMorrow performed the worst. That claim mattered because many Democrats were making an electability argument against El-Sayed at the time — arguing that he was too liberal to win a general election in Michigan. The fabricated numbers undercut that argument and bolstered El-Sayed's case.

The Democratic establishment then rallied around Representative Haley Stevens, but Stevens lost the primary to El-Sayed — albeit by a much smaller margin than the polls had predicted. That result led to criticism of the polls conducted on behalf of El-Sayed's supporters. El-Sayed had previously claimed that a poll showing him behind Stevens was paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Now, with El-Sayed facing Rogers in the general election on November 3, the scandal has reopened those wounds. Neera Tanden, an influential liberal who had supported Stevens, wrote on X: "Absolutely locking in that Mike Rogers needs to lose in 2 weeks, but man the pollsters that showed Haley behind over the summer were either made up or highly partisan. And a lot of smart people fell for the op."

Retiring Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, also a Stevens supporter, had complained about the polls at the time: "Campaigns try to get polls that are favorable to them and put them out … get polls of questionable accuracy, but if they look good for you, get them to have media folks pick them up and report them in order to try to create like a bandwagon effect, which is a technique as old as politics itself. We saw polls that were questionable right from the start for me."

McMorrow, like Tanden, reiterated that she is supporting El-Sayed over Rogers in the general election. But she also raised the uncomfortable question that will linger if Democrats lose the seat: in a state that has not elected a Republican senator since 1994, during what is supposed to be a favorable year for Democrats, would McMorrow have been better positioned to unite the party ahead of the general election? El-Sayed leads Rogers by less than 3 points in the RealClearPolitics polling average — a much narrower margin than Democrats enjoy in much redder states such as Texas, Kansas, Iowa, and Ohio, where they are leading or within striking distance.

Not the First Fake Polling Scandal This Year

The Wedgewood admission is not an isolated incident. It is the latest in a string of polling integrity problems in the 2026 cycle, and that pattern is what makes it so damaging.

Earlier this year, another company released polls in what it similarly described as a social experiment, with Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass circulating one that showed her ahead in her reelection race. That company, Median Strategies, later said in a press release: "All previously published polling releases have been withdrawn and should not be cited or treated as genuine polling data. Median Strategies was created as a short-term social experiment examining how purported polling information could enter and spread through the political information ecosystem without independent verification."

In another case, a pollster admitted it had used unconventional methods to increase its numbers for James Fishback, the distant third-place finisher in the Florida Republican gubernatorial primary won by Representative Byron Donalds. Fishback was a client of the pollster, and the poll in question was one of the few showing him running competitively. He ultimately received 10.5 percent of the vote, running nearly 15 points behind runner-up Lieutenant Governor Jay Collins.

Taken together, these episodes describe an ecosystem in which fabricated or manipulated numbers can be produced cheaply, distributed widely, and laundered into legitimacy by aggregators and media coverage — all before anyone checks whether the underlying survey ever happened.

Why Polling Reliability Matters So Much Right Now

The timing of the Wedgewood scandal could hardly be worse for confidence in the polls. Momentum appears to be building toward a Democratic takeover of the House, and a large volume of high-quality polling shows the public dissatisfied with the economy and disapproving of President Donald Trump's performance in office — two key metrics that favor Democrats. The party that controls the White House has lost House seats in all but two midterm elections since 1938.

But the Senate races are close enough that even a minor polling error could drastically alter the picture of which party is favored to win control. The closest races — Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Texas, Alaska, and Ohio — are all within a few points in the polling averages. In that environment, a handful of fabricated polls folded into an average could shift the narrative about a race, affect fundraising, and influence strategic decisions by the national parties.

Polls have also misfired in some recent races, and Republicans, including Trump, have speculated that polls — often conducted by the media or universities — are meant to demoralize Republican voters. The Wedgewood admission gives that argument new ammunition, even though the fabricated numbers in this case appear to have hurt a Democrat. The deeper point is bipartisan: if fake polls can enter the averages, then no campaign can fully trust the numbers it is reading.

McMorrow's own conclusion was blunt: "If this teaches us anything – DON'T GET COMPLACENT AND DON'T TRUST THE POLLS."

What Happens Next

The scandal is likely to trigger calls for reform from both parties and from within the polling industry itself. Aggregators may face pressure to tighten their inclusion standards — requiring firms to disclose their methodology, their funding, and their track record before their numbers are listed. Media outlets may face pressure to verify a pollster's credentials before citing its numbers on air or in print. And campaigns may become more cautious about touting polls from unfamiliar firms, knowing that a number that looks favorable today could be exposed as fabricated tomorrow.

But reform, if it comes, will take time — and the election is eight days away. In the meantime, the practical lesson for voters is the one McMorrow stated: treat individual polls with skepticism, pay attention to polling averages from established firms with transparent methodologies, and remember that a polling lead is not a prediction. Polling averages can change, and a lead in the polls does not indicate the probability that a candidate will win.

For the Michigan Senate race in particular, the scandal adds a layer of uncertainty to an already tight contest. El-Sayed's lead over Rogers is less than 3 points in the RealClearPolitics average. Rogers has the backing of Trump, who campaigned for him in Port Huron on October 25, and the race is rated a toss-up by forecasters. Whether the Wedgewood revelations change any votes is unknown. What is certain is that they have changed the conversation about the polls themselves — and in a cycle where the polls are the story, that may be the most consequential effect of all.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Wedgewood Polls?

Wedgewood Polls is an outfit that published polling results during the 2026 election cycle and then admitted on social media on Tuesday that most of its results were not legitimate. It described itself as "an experimental project to demonstrate the vulnerabilities, lack of oversight, and overall low barrier to entry in the modern political polling industry." It said it conducted one real poll in Nebraska, but that the rest of its releases were fabricated.

How did fake polls end up in major aggregators?

According to Wedgewood's own statement, its releases were added to major polling aggregators, including The New York Times, FiftyPlusOne, and VoteHub, despite the firm having no history, formal credentials, or real data behind most of its numbers. Its fabricated figures were also cited on air and in reporting by national outlets such as MS Now. The firm said the experiment proved how easily a fabricated polling firm can gain traction and be taken seriously.

How did the fake polls affect the Michigan Senate primary?

Former Democratic candidate Mallory McMorrow said a Wedgewood poll in late June showed her "plummeting into single digits," contradicting her campaign's internal polling. She said her donations dried up, her volunteers panicked, and the media pressured her to drop out — which she did on July 5. Wedgewood's numbers were also used to argue that Abdul El-Sayed polled best against Republican Mike Rogers, while McMorrow polled worst, undercutting the electability argument against El-Sayed. El-Sayed went on to win the primary over Representative Haley Stevens.

Is this the first fake polling scandal of 2026?

No. Earlier in the year, a company called Median Strategies released polls it later described as a social experiment, including one circulated by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass showing her ahead in her reelection race. Median Strategies later withdrew all its releases. Separately, a pollster admitted using unconventional methods to boost numbers for James Fishback in the Florida Republican gubernatorial primary; Fishback finished third with 10.5 percent of the vote.

Does the scandal mean all polls are unreliable?

No. The scandal concerns one fabricated outfit and a small number of manipulated polls. A large volume of high-quality polling from established firms with transparent methodologies continues to show consistent trends, including public dissatisfaction with the economy and disapproval of President Trump's performance. However, the episode shows why voters and journalists should check a pollster's track record and methodology, and why a single poll — especially from an unfamiliar firm — should never be treated as definitive.

What does this mean for the November 3 midterms?

The Senate races are close enough that even small polling errors could change perceptions of which party is favored. In Michigan, El-Sayed leads Rogers by less than 3 points in the RealClearPolitics average. The broader lesson, as McMorrow put it, is: "DON'T GET COMPLACENT AND DON'T TRUST THE POLLS." Voters should rely on averages from established pollsters and remember that polls measure a moment in time, not the final result.

Sources: Washington Examiner (October 2026); Wedgewood Polls social media statement; Mallory McMorrow on X; RealClearPolitics polling averages (updated October 25, 2026).