[Defiant]

It's not outside the bounds to hold an open convention when none of the candidates has a majority. There has not been an open convention in a long time, only one I recall was 1976, when Reagan almost won. But long ago, when there were fewer primaries, state delegations showed up and were not committed to any particular candidate. You could go in not having any idea who could win. If Cruz, Rubio and Trump duke it out, and no one has a majority, then you get to horse trading at the convention.

But what is different about this go around, and what makes it difficult to accept that the party could pick someone at an open convention is that in this situation, the party is fighting against some of its candidates. The party should be neutral, and the candidates can battle between themselves. But in this primary, we have the party leaders working night and day to "stop" one of the candidates, setting up phony debates where opponents of that candidate get to savagely attack him. We have party leaders working on funding marketing efforts against candidates, and rounding up donors to consider a third party, or bring in a retread to get the nomination. That is a new development. And if, through their efforts, they manage to keep the front runner from getting to a majority, but he is close, and they then try to take the nomination from him, that is going to result in severe repercussions.

Not just a loss this time; I think they wouldn't mind a loss. I think it would be the end of that party. The 5 or 10 percent of the party who are "establishment" can go join the Democrats, which is where they belong anyway.

[Marie]

Exactly.

If Cruz were leading, you’d be watching the GOPe pulling out all the stops on him right now. Kelly would be sharpening her teeth on his neck. Romney and 1/2 of the US Senate would be eating him alive.

And if they do manage to take out Trump, watch how fast it happens.