It is sometimes difficult to find publicly released polling for many different races, especially the down ballot ones. Other polling is done but kept internally and not released for free.
If a fake polling company could be set up to release polls for underreported races that are being traded on prediction markets then you could make a good bit of money by timing your trades to the release of your fake poll.
The goal is not just to influence the prediction markets to game a profit, it would also be to hope that once the polls influence the prediction markets, that it will feed back into the voters to actually influence the result.
Last week the polling website FiftyPlusOne contacted Wedgewood Polls with questions about the authenticity of its surveys. In response, the team behind the supposed pollster acknowledged that its work was fake. The whole thing, Wedgewood claimed, was an “experimental project.”
The project had an impact on election campaigns, with polls it did since June on many races, “shifting from one midterm battleground to another,” the New York Times reported, including Michigan, Maine, Kansas and Wisconsin.
...
The media has reported that Wedgewood began releasing polls in June. On July 7, a story by Urban Milwaukee raised questions about a Wedgewood poll on the Democratic primary for governor in Wisconsin. Up to then, the most recent Marquette poll had shown Hong with 14% of the vote, and a more recent internal poll released by the campaign of Sara Rodriguez showed Hong at 22%. But the Wedgewood poll had Hong at a whopping 30%, which could “help convince Democrats who doubt her electability that she is running away with the race,” the story reported, noting that Wisconsin Republican Chairman Brian Schimming had said that for Republicans Hong would be the best opponent.
...
But the Wedgewood “experiment” clearly sought to push Democratic voters in a way that would help Republican candidates. Just as it tried to elevate the candidacy of Francesca Hong, the most liberal candidate in the Wisconsin Democratic primary, it released a fake poll showing Mallory McMorrow, the moderate candidate in the Michigan primary for U.S. Senate, “plummeting into single digits,” as Time reported. “McMorrow said donations ‘dried up’ and she was ‘hounded’ with calls to exit the race after the circulation of the infamous’ Wedgewood poll numbers.”
Funny how the party that always screams the loudest about election fraud is the party that keeps getting caught (but somehow not really punished) committing election fraud.
Hard to say what the takeaway or lesson is here, other than having trustworthy professionals disseminating unbiased information is a public good and losing it creates paranoia and social distrust everywhere.
Generating an AI hallucination of "called 278 likely voters in the district and it resulted in..." is just as fake as making up the data yourself.
AI hallucination could be a way to generate fake polling data, but that doesn't matter given that the intent is to generate fake polling data. It could have been done with a bag of dice just as easily.
There is a lot of crap being produced to sway the election from all sides of the political spectrum.
A more serious question of how and why an organization such as the NYTimes (and others of similar stature) would so easily and quickly incorporate polling data from a brand new polling company into its election data and articles and be so easily fooled.
And, when this was uncovered, they did not do much more than what seemed the minimal amount to CYA, quietly backing out the data and issuing an editors note that few people would find.
They do not seem that interested in protecting their reputation, or maybe they don't believe their readers care.
Why are we both-sidesing this and blaming the poll aggregators when they are the ones that successfully rooted out the fake poll data?
I think a big problem is that, as a poll aggregator, the more you pick and choose which polls are allowed to be aggregated, the more risk there is that you are inserting bias into the result through selective exclusion. Erring on the side of broadly accepting poll data means less room for bias. But they do talk about the need to raise their standards due to the increasing ease of producing fake data in this podcast with FiftyPlusOne: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Neuot3aMkrY
Trump has been manipulating the media, attacking the electoral process, lying, using federal resources to persecute political rivals... "all sides" seems unfair.
> "Right-Wing Influencers Amplify the Controversy"
Seems like the kind of thing someone should go to jail for. You can't just run a "social experiment" by committing fraud and lying to people, and that's assuming this isn't just an excuse someone came up with once they knew they would be caught.
It isn’t necessarily a crime to lie or do a hoax, and a fake poll by itself is probably well within the lines of free speech. The fraud question comes into it for two possible cases:
1) someone might have paid them to do a real poll and they faked it, which is just straightforward fraud with a clear victim.
2) (the fun one) they might have done it to manipulate political prediction markets, which gets into securities fraud questions.
Normally I wouldn't say something that lightheaded but.. I think this is what psyops look like. I'm not claiming it is one. But it sure sounds like one.
That was the first thing that I thought of and it does make way more sense than a few people wanting to make a name for themselves as an actual Polling org. I don’t see the incentive in producing fake polling unless there are ulterior motives
If a fake polling company could be set up to release polls for underreported races that are being traded on prediction markets then you could make a good bit of money by timing your trades to the release of your fake poll.
The goal is not just to influence the prediction markets to game a profit, it would also be to hope that once the polls influence the prediction markets, that it will feed back into the voters to actually influence the result.
Would we have obtained the same "confession" after next Tuesday had they remained unexposed?
AI hallucination could be a way to generate fake polling data, but that doesn't matter given that the intent is to generate fake polling data. It could have been done with a bag of dice just as easily.
A more serious question of how and why an organization such as the NYTimes (and others of similar stature) would so easily and quickly incorporate polling data from a brand new polling company into its election data and articles and be so easily fooled.
And, when this was uncovered, they did not do much more than what seemed the minimal amount to CYA, quietly backing out the data and issuing an editors note that few people would find.
They do not seem that interested in protecting their reputation, or maybe they don't believe their readers care.
I think a big problem is that, as a poll aggregator, the more you pick and choose which polls are allowed to be aggregated, the more risk there is that you are inserting bias into the result through selective exclusion. Erring on the side of broadly accepting poll data means less room for bias. But they do talk about the need to raise their standards due to the increasing ease of producing fake data in this podcast with FiftyPlusOne: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Neuot3aMkrY
Trump has been manipulating the media, attacking the electoral process, lying, using federal resources to persecute political rivals... "all sides" seems unfair.
> "Right-Wing Influencers Amplify the Controversy"
Oh, I get it now.
1) someone might have paid them to do a real poll and they faked it, which is just straightforward fraud with a clear victim.
2) (the fun one) they might have done it to manipulate political prediction markets, which gets into securities fraud questions.