More On (Moron?) Supers

My view that Move On! and other Obama-supporting groups are wrong in urging superdelegates to hang back and declare support en masse for the National Primary Popular Vote Winner (or some other imaginary decisive conceptual outcome) comes from three fundamental perceptions:
1) The race is basically a tie and will be even more so after the last three big states vote;
2) There's a natural predisposition among some of the party hacks and elected officials toward Clinton; to overcome that would require a much more decisive Obama victory than is likely to be possible; and
3) The only outcome that would truly be a disaster would be a bunch of party officials proclaiming themselves to be the arbiters and, acting in concert, throwing the contest to one side or the other in the months after the primaries and before the convention.

I think it's important to point out that 3) would be a disaster for the party no matter which way they threw it, or based on whatever evidence they chose to cite.

The best solution is to have as many superdelegates as possible announce their intentions sooner, rather than later. If they want to wait for popular validation of their leanings, fine, do it after Ohio/Texas, or after Pennsylvania. Not that those are really going to decide anything. It would be better if more of them declare earlier; that way, the voters can react to superdelegate endorsements at the ballot box--in at least a couple of states.

If the number of uncommitted delegates going into the last month before the convention is very small, the chances that neither candidate (in a two-candidate race) could get a majority will be very small. (From statistics: The probability of any particular point outcome in a continuous distribution is 0--this is discrete but with such a high number of "observations", it's close to being continuous.) If, by some chance, it comes out 2024-2024, with 1 for Kucinich (guess who?), OK, we'll take another ballot. It would be the most fascinating thing to happen in a convention in at least 40 years, hardly a disaster. One must avoid the appearance of a fixed outcome at all costs, unless it goes multiple ballots, in which case a backroom deal is a necessity. Again, this should not happen unless there is a significant number for some third nominated candidate, which does not seem likely (there are apparently about a dozen Edwards delegates still committed to him).