You haven’t provided a shred of evidence that these estimated vote counts are accurate or even how they’re conjured up. Simply pointing to the fact that they’re estimated doesn’t establish they’re accurate.
And how do you think these experts arrive at their vote-count estimations? As your own link said, there aren’t actual vote counts for many of the contests. Here is the only example I’ve seen of anyone actually trying to explain the methodology behind estimating actual vote counts and it uses complete nonsense like the beauty-contest primaries hosted after delegates had been awarded via caucus i.e. after the point in participating in the primary has been rendered moot.
Next, explain away the differences in the way actual primaries are hosted and why we should ignore those distortions.
Your argument amounts to an assumption that the same people who routinely blew their projections—y’know, the things on which they’ve built their expert reputations, which was my point—nailed the vote-count estimations reliably despite no evidence and no methodology to scrutinize.
And I’m the intellectually dishonest one? Too funny.