GOP establishment at war with Republican voters

Josh Marshall at TPM makes the point that the idea of a contested convention -- Trump losing on first ballot; then, ignoring Ted Cruz and nominating a "fresh face" (like Paul Ryan) -- is unlikely to happen.   BECAUSE what happens in the convention hall is not the end of the story, and it doesn't solve the problem at the ballot boxes in November.

The establishment preferred Rubio or Bush or Walker -- but none of them survived the primaries.   So what's going to make another establishment choice a winner in November?   Marshall writes:

*   *   *

". . . . [T]he GOP primary electorate voted overwhelmingly for anti-establishment candidates. . . . How does it go over [at the convention] if Trump gets denied, Cruz gets denied . . . .  It is hard to imagine any scenario in which the substantive, expressed will of the GOP primary electorate was more thoroughly rejected at the convention [that was] meant to ratify it. 

"Under normal circumstances, I think any political professional, any close observer of politics would say that a candidate chosen in such a way is simply doomed. I see no reason to believe it's any different this year. . . . 

"The [idea of] freedom of the convention to do anything it wants inside the convention hall seems to blind people to the fact that it has no such freedom or inherent ability to make that work outside the convention hall. The same core divisions remain. They're just easier to paper over. . . .

"The Republican establishment, to the extent such a thing exists, is at war with half or two thirds of its primary electorate. . . .  [I]t has all the logic and pathos of an officer corps firing its army. None of this really changes at the convention. It just becomes easier to pretend. Until you actually try."

*   *   *

I think Marshall is quite right -- if you're only talking about winning the presidency in November.    But apparently many of the Republican leaders are thinking bigger than that.   Pithily put by Lindsey Graham, they'd "rather lose with Cruz" than roll the dice with Trump.  They know Trump would lose and that, with him at the head of the ticket, it will harm the party and the chance of others on the ticket winning their races.   So they would very likely lose the Senate and could possibly even lose the House.  Losing the Senate would lose the Supreme Court balance for them as well.

Actually, there is nothing they can do at this point to make it right.   I'm not sure they'll do much better with Cruz heading the ticket.  The party is in a big mess, and it's probably not going to be fixed at this convention or with this election -- no matter what they do.   I wouldn't go as far as saying they're conceding the presidency;  but "lose with Cruz" expresses serious doubt -- and opting for long term survival.  And that's realistic.

Ralph

Addendum:   After I wrote the above, Josh Marshall put out a clarification of his position, explaining that his main point is the legitimacy of the nominating process with the voters.   If they feel that the nomination has been stolen from them (and it could involve both Trump and Cruz supporters), then that's going to show in the turnout in November.   And, beyond that, the legitimacy of the process will affect the ongoing ability of the party to reunite itself.

Again, I'm not sure the establishment really disagrees with Marshall, at least in private.   But they may be simply opting for long term survival over short term winning.   Of course, they can't say that in public;  they have to pretend to be trying to win the White House.