This isn’t a prediction – it’s what leaders of the GOP are stating outright:
Or here:
I love this:
The rule in politics for both parties has always been “whatever you can get away with”, but with the recent refusal to even consider Supreme Court justice nominees and now this, the GOP seems to be pushing the limits of “whatever you can get away with” further than it has been before.
Because they have yet to reach the wall.
And they just floored the gas pedal.
Not really sure how this is “ignore its primaries”. No one is saying to ignore it if a candidate has a majority of the delegates - simply who to support if NO ONE has a majority of the delegates and it may not be the candidate with the plurality (i.e. Trump).
Unless they take the nomination away from Trump when he has an actual majority of delegates, it’s not ignoring the primaries. We have the same system in the general election, if no one gets a majority of electoral votes, Congress decides.
Parties can choose their nominee however they want. They’ve set up their own rules, not sure what the problem is if they decide to bend them a little.
I don’t even see that. Bending the rules would be to not seat the Colorado and Wyoming delegates (because the caucuses were non-binding) and oh look, Trump is now 2 votes short. This is about no one having 1237 delegates.
I love this approach, and I urge the Republicans to go ahead with this plan. I can’t see many Trump! voters getting in line to vote for Paul Ryan after this type of play. I see HRC winning 47 states.
Oh sure, it’s their game and they can tilt the board however they want.
And it sure will be fun when the pieces don’t want to make the moves they’re supposed to make. 
ETA: Looks like Procrustus said the same thing in different words. 
And if the wrong party is in danger of winning, the Supreme Court decides. It’s called the “balance of powers”.
I think that semantic wishful thinking. Even if no one gets 1237 delegates, by virtue of having a plurality, the voters want Trump. To ignore the biggest voice in the primaries is “ignore its primaries”.
“40% of the voters in Republican primaries voted for Trump” != “Republican voters want Trump” in at least 3 different ways. 1) It’s not a majority 2) The voters might not have actually been Republican 3) The voters might actually hate Trump and prefer the Democrats win.
But, then, who’s “we”? Who is the party? Does it mean Republican voters (it could not mean “party members” in any other sense, American parties do not have membership-rolls or membership-cards), or Republican elected officials, or just the party officials? If the latter, it has been a very long time since they have claimed any important power over . . . anything, really. And, which party officials? Does ever member of every county Republican Executive Committee get a vote, or just Reince Priebus?
Of course, the converse of this is that they had a chance to put Paul Ryan in the primaries and they didn’t.
I have to admit that I’m excited to see how they spin this at the convention if it comes about: “We gave you 16 of our best and brightest and subjected you to six months of continuous campaigning and agonizing debates, the results of which is that of those 16 candidates, the winners were so hopeless, so intellectually and morally bereft of worth that we’re willing to write off the whole shebang and the countless millions of dollars that were spent and start from scratch. But this time, you guys don’t get a say in it.”
I bet that goes over gangbusters.This isn’t news. It’s no secret many in the GOP want a brokered convention so they can nominate Ryan or Mitt or some other non-Trump.
I do wonder if this will motivate more states to implement closed primaries.
The idea of inserting a candidate in place of the clear leader in votes is puzzling to me. Trump doesn’t have a majority, true. But neither does anyone else. How is 40% of the vote not better (from an elect-ablility standpoint) than 0%? Because that’s how many people would have voted for a candidate who was inserted at the last moment.
Do the republicans hate/fear a Trump nomination that much that they’d be willing to sacrifice any chance of a 2016 victory?
All the GOP has to say is, “Look: Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line. Did you really believe that the nation’s job creators would leave the choice of the next GOP nominee to you? Give me a break. Our job is to promise an end to abortion in this country and to mock Matthew 6:5. Your job is press the voting lever next to the letter R. It’s not hard. Once in office we can pile on tax cuts for our fatcat friends and nibble away at [del]social security and medicare[/del] entitlements. We’ve played bait and switch for decades now and if you don’t like it, we’ve got a lecture on personal responsibility for you.”
“So shut up, get in line, and stop your yammering.”
But out of everyone who ran, they want him over anyone else. I don’t think one could plausibly say that someone else should be the nominee even if Trump didn’t get the magical 1237 delegates.
I hope so!
Because to the establishment a 2016 victory with Trump is worse than a 2016 loss. They will be tossed out from their positions of party power.
They still get paid if they lose - they don’t get paid if they win.
Please, please, please. I’ll go to shul for a month. 
But we won’t have to wait for November for our fun. They’ll soon find out that Republicans can be on the receiving end of a Trumpeter sucker punch also. It will make Chicago in 1968 look like the teddy bears picnic.
And, most important in the context of the current campaign season, think of the ratings!
You could spin that in a slightly more noble light. You know, “The Party must sacrifice any chance of a 2016 victory rather than risk putting a dangerously unprincipled demagogue and narcissist like Trump in the White House. A Trump presidency would be a grave threat not only to our Party but even to our Country.”
And if that’s what the GOP Establishment is saying, I think they’re right.
(Although I suppose they’re probably just a bunch of cynical manipulative bastards.)