Once again, Josh cuts through the noise to make an incisive point: the superdelegates are unlikely to decide the Democratic nomination.

The majority of the superdelegates have not yet committed.  Why?  Because they are politicians (or, similarly, political operatives) who made a risk-averse political calculation: they are waiting to see who becomes the inevitable nominee and then jump on the winner's bandwagon as it passes by.  They are uncommitted because they want to make a safe choice.  These folks are not about to take the politically incendiary step of nominating a candidate who got fewer votes and fewer pledged delegates.

Look at it this way: If you were a superdelegate who wanted Hillary to get the nomination, and were willing to vote for her even though another candidate won more pledged delegates . . . then wouldn't you have already endorsed Hillary?  If you felt that strongly about Hillary being the nominee, wouldn't you have already put your money where your heart was?  An early endorsement would at least give you the cover of consistency -- "Well, Obama did win more pledged delegates, but I've always supported Hillary, I gave her my promise, and I can't back out now."

The superdelegates who might be willing to buck the will of the people have already committed.  But there just aren't enough of those.  The rest -- the majority -- are waiting to back the people's choice.