I could agree to a small reduction in superdelegates in the context of an overall "primary reform" deal, but I don't think we should abolish them by any means. What 2016 has shown is that voters cannot be trusted to blindly pick their own presidents - they picked a fascist on one side, and almost picked a socialist on the other side. Just like in the general election where electors can be faithless, superdelegates provide an important "check" on the voters during the primary process. I can agree to the idea that if the voters go with the "wrong" choice by such a large margin that the superdelegates become irrevelant that then the party establishment needs to change their views and endorse the "wrong" nominee. But if the voters are sort of closely divided, the choice should be left up to the party establishment, as they are more likely to know what is truly in the party's best interest.
That's pretty much saying you want to go against what the voters what and say because you don't like their choice. I can't speak for all Bernie supporters, but I feel screwed over because we're being overruled. Partisan politics like this only hurts America, not improves it.
They don't like it that an Independent who isn't a Democrat is beating their queen in many states, so they use the supers to give her a lot more than the pledged delegates she has. I feel like our voice is less important.
