Source: Politics<\/p>\n
A new company whose polls had influenced campaign decisions and helped shape the midterms narrative admitted that it was faking its polling data on Tuesday night, setting off a firestorm in the electionsphere.<\/p>\n
Wedgewood Polls, facing an imminent publication of an investigation from FiftyPlusOne<\/a> showing it was fabricating its numbers, declared late Tuesday night<\/a> that it had been an \u201cexperimental project\u201d to show how an \u201centirely fabricated polling firm\u201d could sway public opinion while painting themselves as the good guys.They\u2019d left an impact and been included by multiple credible polling aggregators including The New York Times \u2014 and mentioned twice in POLITICO’s Morning Score polling roundup.<\/p>\n Speculation is flying about what, exactly, Wedgewood was trying to achieve, and there\u2019s still little public information about the defunct company that had crowdfunded thousands of dollars for its fake data. Was it an effort to boost progressives Democrats in primaries? If so, were progressives or Republicans really behind it? Was it being used to game betting markets? Were top operatives using the bogus data to make spending decisions? Were aggregation accounts too quick to jump on posting the data?<\/p>\n An email to the account listed on Wedgewood\u2019s X account bounced back, and previous PDFs of polls that were tied to the account are no longer available online.<\/p>\n Regardless of what Wedgewood said it was trying to achieve (they remain adamant the project \u201cwas never intended to sway an election or permanently mislead the public\u201d) \u2014 pollsters, operatives and candidates alike said there were real world implications for posting fake data online.<\/p>\n Mallory McMorrow, the unsuccessful Michigan Democratic Senate candidate who dropped out before her primary, said a fake Wedgewood poll<\/a> that showed her crashing to single-digit support<\/a> against Abdul El-Sayed and Rep. Haley Stevens \u201cdried up\u201d donations, \u201cdevastated\u201d volunteers and led to numerous calls to exit the race.<\/p>\n \u201cIt killed us,\u201d McMorrow wrote on X<\/a>. \u201cThese were some of the absolute worst days on the campaign. Especially for my team. There are no words to explain the morale blow, and nothing I could do or say to my team to fix it.\u201d<\/p>\n Jennifer Holdsworth, a Democratic operative who ran a super PAC supporting McMorrow, said the Wedgewood poll<\/a> \u201cwas used by several donors to pull back funding at a time we were being outspent by $80 million.\u201d<\/p>\n The account also posted a poll showing democratic socialist Francesca Hong leading in Wisconsin gubernatorial primary, when there was scant public polling, something that contributed to the narrative she was ahead before the election (which she lost).<\/p>\n They also posted a poll showing the Mississippi Senate race within reach, just before Democrats plowed money into the state. Scott Colom, the Democrat running for the seat, blasted the poll to his press list as proof there was \u201cmassive momentum\u201d behind him.<\/p>\n That led election watchers to argue that Wedgewood\u2019s data was being used to make spending decisions in top outside groups, which elicited a response from Democrats\u2019 main Senate super PAC.<\/p>\n \u201cAbsolutely not. We don\u2019t make spending or strategic decisions based on external polling,\u201d Lauren French, a spokesperson for Senate Majority PAC, said on X<\/a>.<\/p>\n In its investigation, FiftyPlusOne said it had included Wedgewood in its aggregator because the firm was founded by people who had worked in the polling industry previously.<\/p>\n There\u2019s also been broad finger pointing at the aggregator X accounts that post polls frequently \u2014 and sometimes without verifying their accuracy.<\/p>\n \u201cYou posted our polls multiple times. If you suspected it was fake, why did you post our results?\u201d Wedgewood\u2019s account shot back<\/a> after Polling USA wrote<\/a> that \u201cmy suspicions about Wedgewood were correct.\u201d<\/p>\n The whole ordeal illuminates just how big a problem polling could be in 2028, where both parties will have presidential primaries and polling can shift the narrative on a dime.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat I\u2019m concerned about is essentially information pollution, things that are either intended to skew prediction markets or just straight misinformation flying around,\u201d Charlotte Swasey, a pollster for the Democratic group Searchlight, told POLITICO Magazine<\/a> recently. \u201cIt would be really difficult, especially in a primary, to tell people that what they\u2019re seeing about their preferred candidate isn\u2019t real.\u201d<\/p>\n A version of this article first appeared in POLITICO Pro\u2019s Morning Score. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You\u2019ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day\u2019s biggest stories.<\/p>\n