So let’s say the Republicans head into the convention without anyone having a majority of delegates. Trump has warned, as have many other observers, that giving the nomination to someone else would tear the party apart. But nominating Trump also tears the party apart. So I expect there may be at least some talk of a third option:
Instead of placing new names into nomination after the first couple of ballots, or trying to maneuver delegates to support either Cruz or Trump, the party lobbies delegates to stick to their commitment. The chair calls for as much as a dozen votes, but no one wins a majority. So the convention disbands, with no candidate. A halfhearted effort to back Gary Johnson by many in the establishment gets started, but really, Clinton is pretty much uncontested and beats Johnson by about 15 points.
Does just throwing the election to Clinton by not naming a nominee while the party is so divided a better option for Republicans than nominating someone? I have to wonder if at this point it might not be the best available option. The party is just too divided to get fully behind any candidate at this point. That has to be sorted out before we can move forward.