It’s not “stealing”, if, heading into the convention, no one has a mathematical majority.
If Trump has 1237 (or more) before the convention, then it would be stealing if he isn’t the nominee after the convention.
For 150+ years the rule has been that the candidate who has the majority of delegate votes at (and therefore after) the convention is the nominee. It’s just been that in the last 30-40 years there’s been a candidate that has had a majority of delegates bound to vote for him before the convention. So the convention became (largely) a formality at that point. But this has not historically been the case.
Ask your grandparents (if they’re still alive) or anyone who knew of the conventions, and how contentious they were before 30 or 40 years ago. Or pick up a history book. The conventions have been quite contentious over their history. And that’s largely because many times there have been candidates going into it where none had a majority. Some had a “plurality” (which is simply more delegates than all the others) but not a majority (which is 50% + 1). This cycle, 1237 represents 50% of the total delegates plus one.
With all that said, I’ll throw you a bone here: I’m a bit surprised Brietbart of all places is predicting it’s “all but impossible” for Trump to reach 1237. They’ve been such a cheerleader for Trump in the last few months; that’s the only reason I give this much consideration at all. I personally believe that Trump most likely will reach 1237 before the convention. I think Breitbart is jumping the gun here a little.
That was all before Twitter. Most people were entirely ignorant of the sausage making that went on in the smoky back rooms. We had to wait for MovieTone News at the Saturday matinee to learn most of this stuff.
The notion that we the people have ever had any influence over who is selected as the nominee is just naive.
If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it."
Mark Twain -