The single scenario in which I can imagine myself
not voting for the Democratic nominee is if there's a clear popular vote or pledged delegate winner who is denied the nomination because of superdelegates. I care enough about process that it would completely discredit any nominee in my eyes.
This should have been fixed after 2008, when it was a real possibility that the superdelegate system would cast doubt on the eventual nominee's legitimacy. The concern, of course, isn't just that Bernie Sanders or some other candidate might not get his or her due, it's that a "superdelegate veto" of a nominee would do immense damage to the party.
I also strongly disagree that the superdelegates have a better sense of who is "electable" compared to the collective wisdom of Democratic primary voters. The interests of the superdelegates are aligned with those of the party as a whole, but they aren't identical.
I don't expect here anyone to care about Hillary's self-interest, but she herself certainly can without being blamed. If a person has a realistic shot at the presidency of the United States, especially after working at it for a decade, it's not absurd to expect them to take it.
Presumably - I am not actually sure about this, but I would like to believe that it's true - Hillary Clinton cares about things other than her own odds of becoming the POTUS. And maybe, just maybe, those other priorities should carry enough weight in her decision to not favor accepting a superdelegate-granted victory. What I find perplexing is your insistence that
you "hope" that she will, even if the result destroys Democrats in November and alienates reliably Democratic portions of the electorate for years.
