HRC would have been nominated without the superdelegates...that proves we don't NEED them.

[JCanete]

50. They exist I'm not saying democrats are as discerning as I'd like them to be,

and even that probably means different things to the both of us, but they are still a far cut above republicans when it comes to appreciating facts and being informed. But none of that changes the fact that flipping the will of the voters would only result in a republican presidency. Which means the only value of superdelegates is to inflate a candidates numbers in the primary, making that person look out of reach hell...after the first couple states have come in, or even before. Thats how those numbers are used. To misconstrue information, and it was rampant in the last election.

Might it have been used as a kill-switch to prevent someone like Sanders(certainly an action I would completely disagree with but I'm not sure where you stand) from getting the nod? Probably not, because again, the result of doing that versus just witholding or giving tepid support to a candidate that the leadership doesn't like would both likely be that a Republican ended up in the White House. There's no reason to blow up your own party if the result is likely to be the same either way.

In what scenario in the Democratic Party can you actually envision Super-delegates making a positive impact by flipping democratically achieved results?