There were only two cases where that happened. In both cases, Sanders won. We don't have projections for 17 States. But Sanders won 14 of those 17 so it's kind of hard to say there's any evidence that anything was rigged against him in those.
One more thing that's not shown in the table. There were two States that had both primaries where voters could show their preference but no delegates were selected as well as caucuses where the delegates were actually selected. In both cases Clinton won the primaries but Sanders won the caucuses and so got the majorities of the delegates. That is exactly the opposite of what you would expect to happen if something was "rigged" against Sanders.
If there was some evidence that Sanders enjoyed more popular support but Clinton won anyway there would be a case for saying things were rigged. But there isn't. All of the available data indicate that Clinton just enjoyed more popular support. In fact if one were to suspect anything fishy went on at all one would think it was associated with Sanders winning Indiana and Michigan. Me, I think the Democrats would be better off right now in terms of chances of winning the general if they'd voted for Sanders. But they didn't. And they didn't because most of them just flat favored Clinton.
This one never gets old.
