Oh my goodness, Bernie supporters, PLEASE READ
There is so much confusion about delegates and superdelegates and clinching and math and June 7. I'm finding it very frustrating!
Hopefully I can clarify a little.
There are TWO "magic numbers" you could, if you chose, use to determine whether a candidate has clinched the nomination.
1. With superdelegates: 2383 (or 2384 depending on which source you look at)
2. Without superdelegates: you have to subtract the number of superdelegates (719) from the total, which gives you 1664.
Historically, all news media and people in general have used the superdelegate total when declaring the nominee because, well, that's reality. The superdelegates DO count, and a candidate DOES need to reach 2383 to clinch.
So if you count WITH superdelegates, then you also need to include superdelegates who have declared for one candidate in their total. Any other way of doing it is dishonest. You can't use the number 2383 and then also say that Hillary has to reach that number without her declared SDs. That makes no sense. They didn't do that for Obama or any other presidential candidate after the SDs were introduced.
The other argument is that SDs can change their minds, which is true. But that argument had a LOT more weight in, say, February. It's just dishonest, when Bernie needs something like 70% of ALL remaining delegates to beat her pledged delegate lead, to say that SDs are going to switch.
The final argument is disaster happening. If you are a person who thinks that Hillary is definitely going to be indicted, this post is probably not for you.
(By the way, if you count WITHOUT SDs, Hillary has already reached the magic number. But again, no one counts like that.)
So when I see posts saying things like "Hillary needs 79% of the remaining delegates from the contests that are left in order to clinch" (that is a real example of a post I read just today on this very website) it is really frustrating, because they are both counting SDs in the total she needs and eliminating committed SDs from her total. That is simply dishonest. If you want to make the argument that SDs are uncommitted until the convention and so they shouldn't count toward a candidate's total, then you also have to remove them from the magic number.
As a side note: I see totally fallacious arguments on DU saying things like "Trump has already clinched and Hillary can't close the deal which shows she's a weak candidate", which makes NO SENSE because Democrats have proportional allocation in ALL their contests while the Repubs have winner takes all for a lot of theirs.
Please also have a look at Gothmog's post about how candidates have historically clinched when SDs are involved: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512091073
And here is 538's explanation of why Hillary will clinch on June 7:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-will-likely-clinch-the-democratic-nomination-in-new-jersey/
The truth is, barring a disaster, Hillary will clinch the nomination on June 7. And that's a fact.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Bernie's in the White House, AND he gives me the job to appoint Supreme Commanders of the Universe.
Caveat:
In case there are more than one supreme commander to be appointed, I'll be very busy appointing them.
However I can guarantee you the below-described appointment, to be bestowed in plenty of time for his re-election:
• Most Honorable & Supreme Commander of the Universe, Voting Division •.
MISSION: You shall bring forth One (1) Uniformly Honest & Verifiable National Voting System.
You herewith have my fully anonymous, virtuous, and virtual vow which I have herewith and heretoforewhich signed in virtual blood and virtually sealed for posterity with virtual sealing wax, from the ceiling.
Should such a system be so hard to order into existence? I think not. Not with the right appointments.
And with hope? almost anything is possible.
They have to exist in real time in order to be actual facts.
Some do, but most, although cited, don't actually exist.
The ones that don't exist, aren't facts yet. They may never be.
Now, that IS a fact in current time. 
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #11)
That old word, "mandate", rears its ugly head.
I believe Hillary will win the primaries with a strong showing, and I believe she will SHELLACK Trump in the general. Then we can take our mandate (and hopefully a Democratically-controlled Congress along with it) and shove it up the Repub's asses! 
The wingnuts thank you.
Great article on how in every primary contest since the creation of super delegates, the winner was declared the presumptive nominee based on the inclusion of super delegates. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/29/1532358/-What-Does-It-Mean-to-Clinch-the-Nomination-When-Superdelegates-Are-Involved
?1464557557
The answer: history says the first person to get to the magic number is the presumptive nominee, and says it unambiguously, even if the losers often disagree.
Here’s how it has gone since the superdelegates were added to the process.....
Summary
Anyway, I started this research 12 hours ago to answer a question for myself, so that as everyone on TV is spinning things this way and that on June 7th I have some context. What, if anything, have I learned?
First, most non-incumbent candidates have needed superdelegates to win, and the history of superdelegates has been that once a Democrat hits the magic number and becomes the nominee, superdelegates are more likely to flow to the nominee than from them.
Also, in the history of the superdelegates, they have always ended up supporting the decision of the pledged delegates, and their most important contribution has been to amplify leads of the pledged delegate winner so that they can be assured success on a first ballot, and avoid the sort of messy convention that harms a general campaign.
The major thing I’ve learned is that the press declares, and has always declared, the winner after they hit the magic number, and has done so in far more nebulous circumstances than this. Even in 1984, in which Hart won by a number of other metrics, in which the delegate count was the arbiter, and Mondale announced himself as the nominee, even with 38 percent of the popular vote to Hart’s 36 percent—even then, Hart may have claimed he still had a cunning plan, but no one begrudged Mondale the fact he was, for all intents and purposes, the nominee.
When you think about it, that simply has to happen. Things need to get done, and they need the nominee to do them. Except for Reagan in 1976, who chose a running mate after Gerald Ford was made the nominee, there aren’t a whole lot of non-nominee candidates going to the convention with their own vice president picked out. You get to do that because the numbers say you’re the nominee.
Meeting this number also allows the nominee to do the work of campaigning before the convention, establishing a message, building capacity on the ground, etc.
The press, for its part, has always understood this, from 1984 onward, and has named the nominee (or the “presumptive nominee”) the minute the candidate crosses the line with their combination of pledged and supers, and usually said something to the effect that they had “clinched” the nomination. They did that when Mondale had won far fewer states than Hart. They did that when Dukakis did not have 50 percent of the pledged delegates. They did that when Obama had not won the popular vote (yes, I know, Michigan—I hope we’re still not fighting this?).
This is a well researched article and confirms that the nomination process will be over on Tuesday June 7, 2016 when the results of the New Jersey primary are announced.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.