Don't you think it makes a difference that one has more elected delegates (and more votes) and the other has less of both?  Everybody is happy (or should be happy) to vote for the legitimate winner.  But to give the nomination to the person who got beat in the electoral contests will spur a backlash, period, irrespective of race.  Which is why its not going to happen.

I mean, haven't you found it strange that the Clinton backers criticize the notion that superdelegates should support the winner of the pledged delegates, and to a lesser extent the popular vote, claiming that such SD voting would undermine "the rules," yet never suggest any alternative criteria by which superdelegates should exercise their judgment? Its because they haven't thought of an alternative criteria, yet.  I mean, what should the SD's do, flip a coin?  (I'm sure the Clintonistas would be fine with that, so long as there was a picture of Hillary on both sides of the coin...)