Warren the unsurprising underdog in Dem primaries

Recently it was reported that Biden and Sanders lead the Democrat primaries, with Warren coming in third. Is this some kind of accurate assessment derived from unbiased polling or is it part of a planned struggle that's been scripted for the candidates in order to write the history of their ascent to the presidency in a certain way?

Assuming it's scripted, let's see which script makes the most sense: 1) that Biden comes in as the strongest candidate, dominates the old Jewish strong/independent with a unique program and the guts to openly promote 'democratic socialism' in a culture that historically rejects socialism as the politics of enemies like Nazis and Soviets; and both men, Biden and Sanders conquer the woman?

2) that Sanders rises to run against Trump in defiance of more moderate-seeming Biden, who has already held vice-presidential office under Obama; and then conquers the woman?

3) that an underdog woman candidate fights against men, one the same expressly 'socialist,' and old/jewish candidate who played fall-guy to Hillary; the other a white man who represents the established Washington political class all the way back to the Anita Hill v. Clarence Thomas hearings, which have been dug up to paint him as having harmed the progress of women's rights . . . that this underdog woman, who is even part Native American, will rise up against these symbols of traditional partriarchal institutions to take on the ultimate-deplorable rich white male sitting president who actively fights against women's rights to control their own bodies/sexuality/reproduction?

Doesn't it seem fairly obvious that the whole thing is set up and scripted in way that the female candidate is an underdog who will fight her way up through multiple layers of adversity and patriarchy to achieve the first female presidency in a way that makes a pride story for the history books so that generations of women can be taught to resent oppressive patriarchy and fight against it with the hope of triumphing and winning hero status?

Or maybe it's not scripted at all and this is just the way history happens naturally when no strings are being pulled and public opinion is a totally free and spontaneous market of occurrences.

FIGURING OUT THE RIGHT SCAPEGOATS TO MOTIVATE THE POPULAR VOTE

In order to effectively manipulate maximum voter turnout, I think political strategists analyze how to set up candidates against scapegoats that enough people will hate to motivate them to go out and vote for their adversary. I think this is why Biden has been portrayed in terms of his role in the Anita Hill testimony against Clarence Thomas; and why Sanders was chosen as a foe-candidate to make Hillary Clinton appear less old, male, socialist, and Jewish; because all of those traits could be viewed unfavorably by potential swing voters.

It may even be the case that Hillary Clinton was set up lose against Trump, though I haven't heard anyone suggest there could be multi-party collusion going on. If they did, it would cause confusion for the public in terms of oppositional factional loyalty between two rival parties; so that narrative possibility may be suppressed for that reason.

In any case, political strategism/tacticism is difficult to pinpoint. Can it be investigated and proven one way or the other? Is such a thing possible as 'free elections' in an age where there are so many media channels and so much savvy in designing and deploying ideology as propaganda?

Is it possible that the media will succeed at becoming a watchdog for its own effects on public political perceptions and thus its roll in shaping and even scripting electoral processes and other historical narratives?

Or has the majority settled into the role of an audience to be manipulated by the writers of the scripts it consumes? Has democracy become the means of legitimating its own suppression in favor of planned/scripted narratives and thus central planning?