Of course they're wrong, and there's no way super delegates are going to vote against the pledged delegate winner, especially if (not much of an if at this point) Clinton wins the most pledged delegates. I do have to wonder how people would react if super delegates actually did switch to Sanders and hand him the nomination. No doubt, some of the strongest defenders of super delegates would immediately change their mind and start calling for them to be abolished.
Is there anybody who's really a "strong defender" of super delegates? Even the most diehard Obama '08 and Clinton '16 people seem to be somewhere in the "well, it's the rules they signed up for" area rather than "we absolutely need these to clamp down on those rascally voters."
I'm not a strong defender but I'll defend them. They were put in place so the democrats would stop committing suicide by picking far-left populist candidates like Carter and McGovern. They immediately succeeded by preventing McGovern's campaign manager and chief acolyte Gary Hart from winning. Since then the democrats have mostly picked good presidential candidates (Dukakis was a flop, but the alternative was Jesse f**ing Jackson...) so it's hard to argue that the system isn't working. It's especially hard to argue that the system should be changed because the superdelegates once again prevented an unelectable far-left populist who ran against the party from winning.
The GOP would give it's right arm to have had superdelegates this cycle. A surge of endorsements for Rubio early might have given him an early delegate lead and more media credibility to combat Trump's win-win-win thing. Now they're stuck with an unelectable far-right populist who ran against the party.
