minded into thinking they have something to offer.

An "open" convention could let religious fundamentalists/dominionists, etc. "democratically" choose the candidate.

Now, lets just watch as first Fox and then one by one each of the other MSM outlets begin using the word open rather than brokered. Identifing the source of a purely semantic change to make Repuklican politicians seem less despicable is rare.

Though we keep reading about a "brokered" convention, that's the wrong term, and it seems to be sheer journalistis laziness that's keeping it in the discourse. A GOP convention where no candidate arrives with 1144 committed delegates would be a "deadlocked" convention. After the first (or maybe first couple) ballots, if no one reached 1144, then the delegates would be released to vote as they saw fit. At that point it becomes an "open" convention. The only way it becomes "brokered" is if someone can actually deliver delegate votes (as state party chairman could do in the days before primaries), and there's no mechanism for that in the current convention rules.

It would be too big of a disaster for them to dump the guys who've gone through the primary process for someone the base had no part in choosing, no vetting, no existing fundraising, etcetera. It's a nice fantasy, but I don't think it'll happen.