On the one hand, Obama supporters like to tout the cold hard delegate
math to try to get Hillary out of the race, but then they turn right
around and make a (reasonable) complaint about the undemocratic nature
of the superdelegates. But you can't have it both ways -- if Hillary
wins a majority of the popular vote once all of the voting has ended,
coupled with momentum from winning the last several big primaries, I
think a big spotlight will be turned on all of those caucuses where
Obama racked up his delegates and it becomes much less clear who the
true "winner" is. In my opinion, one of the worst outcomes for Obama
tomorrow would be for Hillary to win majorities in Ohio and Texas, but
for Obama to actually win more delegates in Texas due to the allocation
process. If this happens, I'd be careful about constantly pushing the
delegate math, because the media is already primed for the argument
that the whole process is flawed and a movement to seat FL and MI and
other pro-Hillary developments could suddenly be deemed "necessary" for
the party. Obviously this is a long-shot, but I can plausibly see a
scenario where the spin is actually successful and the media makes it
seem like it's unclear who actually won -- then the superdelegates will
feel free to vote for whoever they want. That might be Hillary.