Superdelegates tend to be clustered within the 'conservative' wing of their party, so to speak, and especially among the Democrats, they tend to favor Washington insiders. One reason I quoted the relative delegate numbers above is to show that those superdelegates could make a case, to themselves and others at the convention, that Hillary better represents what the Democratic voter base wants.
I won't contest you on the issue of the regular delegates - 1.235 to 1 shows that yes, Hillary is marginally higher than Bernie. But I will contest you on the supers - 13.38 to 1? Yes, that could mean that Hillary better represents what the Democratic voter base wants. It also could mean the party insiders are dutifully lining up behind the person who they know will protect their interests, or anticipating being able to call in favors for their state from the Oval Office. Or it might be repayment for the money given to them by the Hillary Victory Fund.
The superdelegates are helping to keep Hillary afloat - consider the following. In the most recent primary in Indiana, as well as the primaries in Michigan, Rhode Island, and Wyoming, Bernie won the state - he possessed the bulk of the Democratic voting cast. Yet, when the delegates were tallied, Hillary
ended up with more delegates than he did. So, Bernie had more of the voter base, but according to your logic (or my incomplete understanding of it), because more delegates voted for Hillary, she somehow better represents what the voters want.
This trend magnifies if you look at states where either the vote was close, but the delegate split was not close to 50/50; or states where Bernie stomped Hillary flat but somehow failed to gain significant numbers of delegates over her - MA, IL, MO, and NY for the former; NH, MN, and HI for the latter. Depending on your margin of error, you could expand that, but those are definite examples where the superdelegates' movement to support Hillary are clear.
She's got a larger margin of primary popular votes so far, and she still holds a polling lead over Trump, even if her margins are much slimmer than Bernie. (cite: http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bernie-sanders-vs-donald-trump-polls-better-than-hillary-clinton-independent-vote-democratic-nomination-how/).
She holds the lead now. The election is in 6 months, a lot can change in that time. For one, Hillary's gotten off easy with Bernie as an opponent - he's refused to use attack ads, and only marginally mentioned her political corruption (the only time I can think of it is that one time in a debate). Trump will not be so kind. Trump has been attack everything
. "Little Marco." "Blood coming out of her whatever." "Lyin' Ted." If I'm Trump, I start hammering her for her flip-flopping - it's half of how Obama got Romney last cycle - and I never let up the pressure. I tell the American people this is a woman who will do whatever is best for her. Clinton may fire back, but Trump's been as tough as Teflon when it comes to weathering such attacks.
For second, Hillary has made clear that she has no strategy to win over Sanders voters. Her attitude is basically "Well, are you really
going to vote for a Republican
?" That's insulting; it's condescending to the Independents, who have largely voted for Bernie, and are historically the smartest and most informed voters. It's being presumptive that all the Bernie supporters are going to line up like good little children and vote for someone who has maligned them.
Finally, Hillary has enjoyed the benefit of internal politics set up in her favor from the very start. It's no secret that the head of the DNC, Wasserman-Schultz, is a Clinton supporter. A few months back, Tutsi Gabbard, Vice Chair of the DNC, resigned her position there because she stated that her support for Bernie caused a conflict of interest with her duties as Vice Chair. Where's the similar action - or even the call to
- on Schultz' part? There will be no such benefit in the general election.
So if they can get what they think is a best-of-all-worlds - a candidate who can be said to represent a (slim) majority of Democratic voters, and is projected to win the general election, and will protect the party interests, there's very little reason for them to take a long shot on one of those criteria at the cost of the other two.
Democratic voters alone don't win you the election. For as bad as it was, Romney's 47% statement was correct in one aspect - there are people who will, no matter what, vote for their particular party. But at this time, neither of those diehards - Democrat or Republic - are enough to secure victory all by themselves. You need independents, you need the people in the swing states. Bernie has the bulk of the Independents on the Democratic side. You don't want the candidate who will win the people that vote blindly. You want the candidate that wins the people who don't
Trump is already making overtures to Sanders voters, to get them over to his side. Keep in mind, depending on your study, anywhere from a quarter to a third of Bernie supporters have already said "I'm not voting for Hillary." And this was last fall, before the Clinton campaign started talking down to them and Trump started suggesting that Bernie was being treated unfairly.
What the DNC is doing right now is a death-or-glory attack in supporting Hillary: either they win, and get everything they want, or they lose, and get nothing.