In financial fraud investigations, we often distinguish between direct misstatements and what auditors call “presentation risk”—the deliberate arrangement of technically true information in a way that misleads the reader.
The same dynamic plagues political journalism, where the line between reporting and amplifying selective spin has largely disappeared. Polls get commissioned not to inform decisions, but to generate headlines. Methodologically weak data gets presented as authoritative. Internal research gets selectively briefed to create the illusion of independent validation.
The result isn’t fake news—it’s something more subtle and perhaps more damaging: real numbers arranged to tell false stories. Case in point: Politico’s June 2 headline: “Democrats prefer Adrienne Adams to Cuomo in general election, new poll shows.”
The story reports real numbers from an actual poll. But when we examine how those numbers were obtained, contextualized, and disseminated, a different picture emerges—one of coordinated narrative manipulation that would raise red flags in any financial disclosure.
The Setup: A Poll Designed for Headlines, Not Decisions
The Working Families Party commissioned Upswing Research & Strategy to survey 600 likely Democratic primary voters about the mayoral race. But here’s where it gets interesting: after collecting the primary data, they divided respondents into three subgroups of 200 each to test general election matchups.
The result Politico headlined? Adrienne Adams beats Andrew Cuomo 41% to 34% in a hypothetical general election.
The problem: A 200-person subsample carries a margin of error of ±7% or higher. For context, legitimate polling organizations rarely publish general election results from samples under 400, and campaigns typically treat such numbers as statistically meaningless.
The bigger problem: This survey only included Democratic primary voters—excluding Republicans and independents who actually decide general elections.
The biggest problem: Despite Adams supposedly performing best against Cuomo, WFP ranked her third in their endorsement, behind Zohran Mamdani (who lost to Cuomo 46–35) and Brad Lander (who lost 41–38).
METHODOLOGY SIDEBAR: Why 200-Person Subsamples Are Statistically Meaningless
The Math Problem: A 200-person subsample carries a margin of error of ±7% at the 95% confidence level. This means when the poll shows Adams beating Cuomo 41% to 34%, the real range could be Adams 34-48% vs. Cuomo 27-41%—making the race statistically tied.
Industry Standards: Reputable polling organizations rarely publish general election results from samples under 400 respondents. Most campaigns treat subsamples under 300 as internal guidance only, not public findings.
The Subsample Problem: This poll divided 600 Democratic primary voters into three groups of 200 each to test different general election matchups. But subsamples compound statistical uncertainty—you’re taking a slice of a slice.
Missing Voters: General elections include Republicans, independents, and registered Democratic crossover voters who may vote outside party lines. Testing a “general election” scenario using only Democratic primary voters assumes all Democrats will vote for their party’s nominee—ignoring the reality that crossover voting often decides mayoral races.
Why It Matters: In legitimate polling, statistical significance matters. A 7-point lead with a 7-point margin of error isn’t a lead—it’s noise. Publishing such results as authoritative findings misleads readers about actual electoral dynamics.
Red Flag: When even the organization that commissioned the poll publicly questions its reliability (as WFP did), that’s your signal the numbers shouldn’t drive headlines.
WFP’s Own Disavowal
Ana María Archila, co-director of WFP’s New York chapter, explicitly acknowledged the poll’s limitations when pressed by Politico. She noted the small sample sizes and the absence of non-Democratic respondents. She also declined to release the full poll methodology.
Think about this: The organization that commissioned the poll publicly downplayed its reliability while selectively leaking its most favorable finding.
In financial terms, this would be like a company promoting a metric to investors while simultaneously telling analysts not to rely on it. The SEC would have questions.
The Media Laundering Process
Politico’s role in this narrative laundering operation is particularly revealing. The reporters had access to the full story:
- The poll was internally commissioned by a political organization
- The sample size was statistically weak
- The commissioning organization publicly questioned its reliability
- WFP ignored the poll’s conclusions when making their actual endorsements
Yet Politico chose to lead with “Democrats prefer Adrienne Adams to Cuomo.”
Even more telling, they buried the contradiction deep in the article: “Even after the poll projected Adams defeating Cuomo in the general election, the party on Friday night picked Mamdani as its first choice.”
That sentence should have been the lede. Instead, it reads like an afterthought.
When Experience Meets Narrative Laundering
What makes this particularly concerning is the experience level of the reporters involved. This wasn’t a case of inexperienced journalists being misled by sophisticated political operatives.
Sally Goldenberg is City Hall bureau chief for POLITICO New York, reporting on housing, economic development and real estate. According to Politico’s own staff biography, she joined the team in October 2013 to cover New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration, and previously covered the New York City Council and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration for the New York Post. Her experience includes reporting for the Staten Island Advance (July 2005 to May 2008), and covering municipal government for the New Jersey Star-Ledger (December 2002 to June 2005).
Her co-author, Joe Anuta, is a senior reporter who covers City Hall for POLITICO New York. Prior to joining the team in February 2019, he spent five years writing about real estate and housing policy for Crain’s New York Business. He got his start covering New York City government as a local reporter for the Brooklyn Paper and later for TimesLedger Newspapers in Queens.
Between them, this represents over 25 years of combined experience covering municipal government, multiple mayoral campaigns, and New York City politics. Both graduated from major journalism programs and currently hold senior positions requiring editorial judgment and institutional knowledge.
Reporters with this background necessarily understand:
- Polling methodology and sample size limitations
- The difference between internal polls and independent research
- How political organizations use media to shape narratives
- The importance of statistical significance in electoral analysis
This wasn’t a rookie error. It was experienced political reporters participating in the amplification of selective spin while burying obvious contradictions.
The Social Media Amplification
The laundering extended to social media. Goldenberg promoted the story with this post on X (formerly Twitter):
“NEW: @AdrienneEAdams is the only WFP-backed candidate to beat @andrewcuomo in a head-to-head, per poll WFP commissioned ahead of its ranked endorsement. The party ranked @ZohranKMamdani first anyway, given his primary polling advantage.”
Notice the framing: Adams beating Cuomo gets the headline treatment, while WFP disregarding their own poll becomes a footnote—”anyway.” The tweet reads more like campaign messaging than journalism.
The Feedback Loop
The narrative laundering didn’t stop with publication. Politico used their own story to generate additional quotes, including this response from Attorney General Letitia James, Adams’ “most prominent endorser”:
“In a one-to-one match up against scandals and toxic masculinity, Adrienne Adams is the only choice. We cannot go back. Progress requires looking forward.”
What makes this particularly striking is that James herself is currently under federal investigation for mortgage fraud, as confirmed by an April 2025 FHFA criminal referral to the U.S. Department of Justice. The Federal Housing Finance Agency referred James for allegedly falsifying mortgage documents and property records to obtain more favorable loan terms. Yet Politico presented her quote without any mention of this context—treating someone under investigation for financial misrepresentation as a credible voice on political integrity.
Notice the progression: WFP leaks selective data → Politico publishes it as news → Adams’ supporters (including one under federal investigation) cite the coverage to claim momentum → More coverage follows. The poll becomes its own justification, amplified by sources whose own credibility is questionable.
The Working Families Party got their headline. Politico got their story. Adams got her momentum narrative. The only casualties were accuracy and the public’s ability to distinguish between independent reporting and coordinated messaging.
Why This Matters Beyond One Race
This isn’t about who should be mayor. It’s about how raw political messaging gets laundered through the appearance of independent journalism.
The cycle looks like this:
- Commission internal research with known limitations
- Selectively brief favorable findings to press
- Publicly downplay the same research
- Ignore the findings in actual decisions
- Use the media coverage as validation
If a public company followed this script, regulators would investigate. When political operatives do it, we call it Tuesday.
The Timing Tells the Story
- Late May: WFP conducts poll with mixed results
- June 2: Politico publishes the Adams-friendly spin
- June 2: Adams supporters begin quoting the coverage
- June 2: WFP ranks Adams third anyway
This isn’t media getting spun—it’s media helping spin.
Conclusion: When Numbers Become Narratives
The Adrienne Adams poll wasn’t about public sentiment. It was about generating headlines. When seasoned journalists help amplify selective findings while minimizing contradictions, the story becomes less about the data—and more about who controls the narrative.
In my world of financial fraud investigations, we call this what it is: using real numbers to tell fake stories.
In political journalism, they call it Monday. In forensic accounting, we call it a red flag.
Written by,
Sam Antar
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.