The backers of Bernie Sanders make a big deal of complaining about the "Superdelegates," claiming that the process is "unfair."  More on that later.

But consider this. What if the Democrats had NO Superdelegates?  Let's just assume for discussion the nomination was based not on choosing 4,763 delegates but 4,051 "pledged delegates" (chosen by the process of primaries and caucuses).

So far, here is how the numbers break out for the two candidates on pledged delegates:

Clinton:   1,769 (54%)
Sanders: 1,499 (46%)

(based on projections based from RealClearPolitics).  

There are 783 pledged delegates left to be chosen, therefore. Most of these, 601, will be chosen from California (475) and New Jersey (126).

Let's suppose that Hillary and Bernie split these delegates proportionately as they have all the delegates so far (and the polls suggest this will not happen).  If that is the case, Hillary wins 424 of the remaining ones, Bernie 359.  So that would leave the totals at:

Clinton:  2,193
Sanders: 1,858

And 50% out of 4,051 pledged delegates is 2,026 delegates, so Hillary would win comfortably. 

To put it another way, the only way that Bernie would overtake Clinton in PLEDGED delegates is to win 67% of the remaining pledged delegates, which seems HIGHLY unlikely.  He'd have to win 67% of the popular vote, which he has done in almost none of the states.

Final point on the "Superdelegates" being unfair in some way, or not "democratic."  That is an odd comment.  Why? Because most of the Superdelegates are in fact ELECTED officials, elected by the PEOPLE, and all of them are ELECTED in some way or another. They are Senators, Representatives, Governors.  So in other words, the PEOPLE elected them. We live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, after all, and this is another way to do it, in this case.  It may surprise people, but the Superdelegates include Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, 193 members of the US House, 47 Senators, 21 Governors, 20 distinguished leaders (including former Presidents).