This week, news broke that a fake polling firm has been influencing the 2026 midterm election. Wedgewood Polling has been found to have faked its data, and the reputation of the polling industry and the aggregators that included Wedgewood in their averages is now in question.
With 2026 midterms less than two weeks away and people using polling to analyze 2026 midterm odds, the Wedgewood scandal has significant impacts, and it’s worth noting how election prediction markets are less reliant on potential scams.
The fall of polling trust ahead of the 2026 midterms
The most notable midterm impact is on the polling industry at large. Yes, Wedgewood were scammers, and some argue that legitimate actors shouldn’t have to answer for the sins of illegitimate ones, but the American polling industry hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory in recent years. From missing Trump in 2016 to showing a much bigger win for Joe Biden than he ended up with in 2020, the US polling industry has largely been on the back foot.
Wedgewood’s actions exacerbate that existing lack of trust. The barrier to entry in the polling business has never been lower, and legacy polling firms haven’t been the most reliable in recent years. It’s completely understandable that people are willing to trust upstarts with little track record when the biggest 2024 polling miss of any came not from a plucky upstart, but from Ann Selzer, who had been polling Iowa since the Reagan Administration. When the legacy firms fail, people become receptive to new options.
Which is also why people trust prediction market apps.
Enjoying Covers content? Add us as a preferred source on your Google account
Why prediction markets resist fake data manipulation
Both critics and believers in prediction market election odds would say the same thing: they’re not based solely on polls. At their core, quantitative models are polling averages with some fundamental adjustments and simulations. Because polls make up a huge portion of the inputs, if they're wrong, there’s very little anyone can do except pass the buck.
The argument against prediction markets mirrors the argument for them: by relying less on polls, they’re more likely to be influenced by other factors. Whether that’s fundamentals, early vote, expert ratings, or some combination of all of the above, prediction market election odds can be less influenced by a fake pollster than polls-based models, especially in lesser-polled races.
Wedgewood was one of the first “pollsters” to put Mallory McMorrow in a distant third in the Democratic primary for Michigan Senate, cratering an otherwise viable candidacy. They also ran the most recent public poll of Mississippi, a state where former Vice President Kamala Harris will campaign. Polling averages based on scant data rely on Wedgewood, and when that bet pays off, they take the heat.
But prediction market election odds never bought into the hype around Mississippi, largely because its data ran counter to its Trump +23 status in 2024 and the fact that Democrats haven’t won the state at a major statewide level since 1999.
Covers 2026 Midterm Election hub
- 2026 Midterm Election odds
- Senate Control odds 2026
- House Control odds 2026
- Congress Control odds 2026
- Midterm election predictions 2026
Evaluating poll accuracy in modern election forecasting
Prediction markets don’t treat an anonymous pollster's poll as equivalent to the best poll in the country. Judging elections requires nuance, and that nuance comes from analyzing previous cycles and scenarios. Nobody will be perfect, but in a world where the polling industry is as shambolic as the American one is right now, the mantra of "Believe The Data" isn’t exactly a rallying cry anymore.
Prediction markets are becoming a stronger signal because they don't overreact to outliers or one-off information. Because polls make up a smaller share of the information inputs into prediction market odds than they do into quantitative models, fake polling will have less impact on the market.
There’s no way to avoid bad-faith actors manipulating datasets entirely, but even legitimate polls don’t move the odds much. Despite Darline Graham having a less-than-2% lead on average in South Carolina Senate odds, she has an 81% chance to win. The markets aren’t buying it solely on a handful of polls showing it as competitive, because the underlying fundamentals are so friendly to Republicans. It’s overwhelmingly likely Republicans will beat their average there, something the polls don’t show but the markets do.
And that’s the real reminder of the Wedgewood saga: polls are a useful tool in the election-prediction toolkit, but they’re not infallible. Now, there’s even a question of whether they’re always as real as they seem.
