i should acknowledge that i'm contradicting myself. i'm suggesting that there's reason to be suspicious about the voting results, because the polling suggests that clinton should have an advantage in the caucuses (despite what the media says). the fact that clinton is doing poorly in the caucuses in blue states is strongly suggestive of a rigged primary. a rigged primary is not something that happens just at the counting stage, it's something that happens at the polling stage, too. so, if i'm making this accusation that the process is suspicious, i'm throwing the polling out the window as i'm doing it.
i'm essentially finding something that was overlooked. they didn't think anybody would see that contradiction, or key in on it - although they seem to have seen the necessity in making the (obviously wrong) assertion that sanders should overperform in the caucuses. i know the media keeps saying this. but, that makes absolutely no sense. all polling suggests the exact opposite - that if you prevent independents from participating, clinton should win by large margins. when they throw away the caucuses as "weird", what they mean to say is "the results are not predetermined".
if you can't see through this, your analysis is worthless.
but, then i'm going ahead and relying on the polling in suggesting that michigan should be closer than expected. michigan is an open primary, but it has a "secret ballot". so, you can't actually build that one-to-one relationship between a cast ballot and an actual human without carrying out an audit - and even if somebody bothers, it will be too late by the time it's done.
this is why i'm calling for bernie to run as an independent. the longer he goes through the process of "losing" in a rigged primary, the more compromised what he's saying becomes. he's got lots of money. the dnc obviously doesn't want him; the question is whether he's gotten everything he can get out of the dnc, and whether it's time to move on.
if trump runs as an independent, which is seeming more likely every passing day, this completely changes the logic. it's now no longer a question of splitting the vote and letting the republicans win, which is the over-riding reason bernie has given for running within the democratic party in the first place.
if you have a chance to break up the two party system, you should do it. bernie probably won't get much done as president. it's the reality of the system. but, if he can help break up the system, he'll have accomplished something of real value.
but, yes: i'm absolutely contradicting myself in claiming the process is inconsistent, then relying on it to make a prediction. if i'm right that it's inconsistent, my predictions are not based on anything. and, if my predictions turn out to be accurate, it questions my assertion that the process is rigged.
it's cognitive dissonance. i'm under the same pressures that everybody else is to accept the supposed results and reject conspiracy theories. but, the narrative remains incoherent.
1) if i suspend my disbelief in the accuracy of the results, i should expect a close clinton win. perhaps not quite as close as massachusetts, but something along those lines. that is what the snapshot polling data suggests. and, one wants to look at snapshot data in these circumstances, not "polling aggregates" [which are used to measure brand awareness, not political opinions. it's applying a model used for measuring advertising reach. which is probably actually conscious, believe it or not. but, it's just wrong.]. if you throw away the fox poll for obvious reasons, the recent polls amongst likely democratic voters all have her at around 55. so, she should get less than 55 because there will be independent voters.
2) if i hold true to what the contradictions in the data are implying, we should expect a clinton landslide. and, if you see a clinton landslide, you will know that the vote is, in fact, rigged.