Hillary won 34 contests about 60%
Bernie won 23 contests about 40%
For any given arbitrary selection of states roughly 60% should be Clinton and 40% Sanders.
Let us guess half the contests had a paper trail. This would be about 28 of them. They say Sanders got about half, or say 14 of them. The amount he might expect to get at his 40% success rate would only be 11.2. So he got 2.8 more than expected. There is nothing suspicious about that with such small samples.
It's an unavoidable matter of record.
They are talking about the votes in the states not between the states. If polling is to be believed, the expectation in the Clinton win states was she would get Y% of the vote, +/- the Margin of Error for the polls. Instead she got Y%x1.2, far above the expectation even far beyond the MOE would allow for. You might get 1 or maybe 2 states where either the polls were off or some other factor but in all the states? And only in those states where no paper record is kept to perform an audit? Suspicious, at the least, and worthy of further investigation. It could be some other reason, such as Bernie supporters not knowing how to use the voting machines (comical, I know, but it is just an example of possible innocent reasons for the unexpected results).
Also I don’t have the numbers at hand but didn’t Bernie win by massive amounts in states like WA and OR and WI? It could be that Hillary didn’t have a good outreach program in those places, and American history has revealed from time to time a candidate’s appeal can be very strong in regions and very modest in others. But in a 2 person race (which is what this was, more or less, the other candidates were barely blips on the radar as the party was very fractured and had to galvanize either you were with the woman and the corporate establishment or you were with the socialist asserting that everything that wasn’t nailed down should be given away as a Constitutional right).
That too could be excused by other reasons, but in a 2 person race you might expect either 50-50, or, a consistent margin for one of the two. Esp since Hillary really stood for nothing, she is a no policy status quo candidate. Maybe there are plenty of Dems who are turned off by the socialist message but would they predominate only in states that use voting machines?