>>in response to John's statement "Bernie's been tearing up the primaries, but hillary is leading substantially becuase of the "superdelegates" who will vote for her regardless."

Not guilty. ;-) My observation was that Hilary may have creamed the superdelegates, but she's still ahead in the primaries without them.

From http://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11597550/superdelegates-bernie-sanders-clinton :

There is a theoretical world in which the superdelegates subvert the will of the voters and give Clinton the nomination over the will of the voters. We are not living in that world.
Sanders is losing the nomination because he is losing at the ballot box; for the superdelegates to "decide" the nomination in any meaningful sense, they'd have to ignore the voters and undemocratically hand the nomination to Sanders.
In other words: If all of the superdelegates were eliminated overnight, Bernie Sanders would still be losing the race. Blaming them for his pending defeat isn't just missing the point — it's objectively wrong.
...
Theoretically, Sanders could still catch up with Clinton in the pledged delegate count. To do that, he'd have to win 65 percent of the delegates in every remaining state, according to the Washington Post. And for that to happen, he'd have to win every state remaining by more than he's won anywhere so far except for his home state of Vermont.
If that somehow came to pass, then we could start complaining about the role of superdelegates in screwing Sanders. But that's not what's happening.
And if superdelegates didn't exist, if the Democratic Party did away with them at this year's convention, Hillary Clinton would still have a majority of the remaining delegates.