I don't recall any rumour said 2GB of RAM.

Only reason they reveal Wii U RAM is because Wii U had more RAM than PS3/Xbox360, but Switch with 4 GB will again have twice less RAM than XB1/PS4 so its not something to brag about compared to Wii U vs PS3/Xbox360.

Evre believable rumour said 4GB, actually I don't recall that any rumour suggested 2GB of RAM. More RAM is always better and prices of RAM today are very low.

About the GPU stuff:
-Little Pascal doesn't have that much efficiency improvements over Maxwell, besides VR related stuff. I don't think that there's a big difference between both if manufactured in 16nm.
-Tegra Drive PX2 only has more GFLOP/s because of more clock.
-Foxconn leak talks about a GPU clock of 921MHz. With 256 shaderunits that's 460 FP32 GFLOP/s.

Now the important part:
You can't compare GFLOP/s from different GPU architectures. Maxwell and Pascal are way more efficient per GFLOP than the GPU's Xbone and PS4 are based on. And lightyears ahead of the VLIW5 shaders the Wii U GPU was based on.
It's not so farfetched that 460GFLOP's for Switch would equal half the Xbone power. And it would be a big leap over Wii U's 176 or 352 GFLOP/s, depending on how many shaderunits you think it has.
And even if the Eurogamer stuff is true Switches GPU would be way faster with 384GFLOP/s.

So yes, there's a use for more RAM.

So, RAM:
-It's quite ceap. Well, if you use standard stuff as Nintendo did. Now, 1600MHz leaves as with 12.8, 19.2 or 25.6GB/s depending on the memory interface.
-That memory interface means you'll need a certain amount of chips.
-Clock, bandwidth and memory interface tell us it's not 3GB. Tegra is a bit memory hungry and 4GB aren't much more expensive than 2GB.

Basically, Switch can make use of 4GB RAM and yes, the GPU is way more capable than Wii U's GPU, at least docked.
But i can tell you that even in tablet mode Zelda and Mario Kart run better than on Wii U.

Even on Wii U though they omitted AA completely in some games, despite other titles showing the system could handle various AA methods just fine.

AA is not free, not even the post process types ... 

Do you know the specific numbers for how much each game spend a portion of their frame times with AA enabled ? 

Talking in general.. As even Nintendo's Home Consoles typically used minimal/non-existent amounts of the stuff.

Plus "Morphological" works fine with deferred renderers.

You are pretty correct.

Pascal basically took Maxwell and improved upon it, rather than revolutionised it.
Pascal did improve on things like Delta Colour compression for instance... And got reworked to help drive higher clock rates to help take advantage of Finfet.

nVidia is releasing a "Pascal 2.0" this year. I am interested to see what that entails.

Don't forget Delta colour compression which gives it more bandwidth than the raw numbers implies.
The only other console with a similar technology is Playstation 4 Pro.

Plus, the Switch has a "mode" that developers can toggle which drops the memory speed down to 1333mhz, which Eurogamer did touch upon.

Morph is post-process though ... 

Most of these post-process methods are anything but anti-aliasing when they don't even try to sample in geometry space ... 

I never said it was free, but considering how cheap the post-process stuff can be, and the fact that most Wii U games used at least some kind of AA, it seems weird to omit it for some games. I mean, even if you have to slightly cut back in other areas, going without AA in a 720p game isn't a good look.

But it's still better than nothing.
Plus it's cheap. Super cheap.
Last gen consoles used and abused it because of that fact.

The cut backs aren't at all "slight" when you have to hit an aggressive target of 16.6 ms per frame ... 

Just spending 3 ms on a rendering pass means you've already blown 18% of your frame time budget ... 

There is a good reason behind why software engineers make these trade offs ...