Wedgewood Polls admitted Tuesday, October 20, that it fabricated every survey it published since launching in June, acknowledging that its results were fake after questions emerged about its methodology and raw data. The disclosure has renewed scrutiny of political polling organizations that publish questionable numbers and the media outlets and aggregators that distribute them.

The firm presented itself as a small, progressive-leaning polling operation founded by Jack Sims and Andrew Prater. It published purported surveys in Senate races in Maine, Michigan, Louisiana and Texas, as well as gubernatorial contests in Wisconsin, Ohio, Kansas, Iowa, Georgia and Nebraska. Wedgewood also collected money for several crowd-funded polls, presenting its work as a legitimate effort to measure public opinion.

None of its surveys were genuine. According to FiftyPlusOne, the raw data Wedgewood supplied contained irregularities in respondent identification numbers and transaction identifiers that did not match the expected patterns of the online survey platform the firm claimed to use. Those discrepancies raised questions about whether the surveys had actually been conducted.

The fabricated results nevertheless gained visibility across the political polling landscape. The New York Times included Wedgewood polls on its polling page beginning in June, while FiftyPlusOne, Silver Bulletin, VoteHub and the right-leaning MacIver Institute also incorporated its results into their polling averages or databases. The Times had indicated that Wedgewood did not meet its criteria for selected pollsters, yet the firm's numbers still received exposure.

FiftyPlusOne said it contacted Wedgewood after investigating discrepancies in its data. The firm subsequently published a statement admitting that the surveys had been fabricated and criticizing polling aggregators for failing to adequately vet its work. FiftyPlusOne has since removed Wedgewood's results from its database and averages and said it would no longer include polls from firms founded or run by Sims or Prater.

G. Elliott Morris, a former FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief who is now associated with FiftyPlusOne, has been connected to the investigation through the outlet's reporting. However, the sequence of events does not establish that Morris personally forced Wedgewood to confess. FiftyPlusOne's account says its team had received a tip about the firm and examined suspicious data before requesting further information. Wedgewood's admission came after that inquiry, but the firm's precise motivation for confessing has not been independently established.

The episode also raises questions about the broader history of political polling and the people responsible for maintaining its credibility. Morris became a prominent figure in political data journalism through his work at FiveThirtyEight after Nate Silver's departure. The site's subsequent direction and eventual closure have been criticized by some observers, although those criticisms are separate from the evidence concerning Wedgewood's fabricated surveys.

This is not the first polling scandal of 2026. Earlier this year, The Public Sentiment Institute, also referred to as TPSI, acknowledged manipulating survey responses in Florida's Republican gubernatorial primary. The firm admitted that it changed some respondents' answers to make support for James Fishback appear stronger than it was, favoring the candidate who had commissioned the poll. The disclosure emerged after FiftyPlusOne investigated concerns about the firm's failure to disclose the poll's sponsorship.

Another case involved Median Strategies, a previously obscure organization that admitted in August to fabricating political polls as a purported social experiment. Its fake results covered races including the California gubernatorial contest, Wisconsin's Democratic gubernatorial primary, and the Los Angeles mayoral race. The fabricated numbers circulated online and were amplified by some media outlets and political figures before the deception came to light.

Together, the cases demonstrate that fabricated polling is not limited to a single firm or political race. The incidents involved different organizations and circumstances, but each showed how invented or manipulated numbers can be presented in the format of legitimate survey research and gain attention before their authenticity is established.

The Wedgewood scandal is particularly significant because its results appeared across multiple polling platforms, including one operated by The New York Times. The episode underscores the importance of verifying respondent-level data, identifying poll sponsors, examining methodology, and checking whether a polling firm has actually conducted the surveys it claims to have completed.

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, voters, campaigns and journalists increasingly rely on polling averages to assess competitive races. When fabricated surveys enter those averages, they can distort the public's understanding of an election, create misleading impressions of momentum, and potentially influence campaign strategy or media coverage. The latest admission raises a fundamental question for the polling industry: how much confidence can the public place in election averages when the underlying surveys are not always independently verified?