The NYT headline says "C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence" and I'm instantly skeptical about whether what's in the article supports that headline.

Because there's so much fake news these days.

Ever notice how cries of "fake news!" slip out of the news when the news outlets have some fake news to slip over? Oh, first let me show you Trump's new tweet:

Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016

Now, let's get down to the work of checking to see whether the NYT really presents evidence to justify that headline. I'm reading every word of the rather long article but will only give you the actual evidence offered for the proposition that the Russian government intervened in the U.S. election for the purpose of helping Donald Trump win. There's a lot of material in the article that is not about that at all. I'm excluding that, which is padding if the headline is the correct headline. Go to the link if you want to see what it is.

The first relevant material comes in the 16th paragraph: The DNC's servers and John Podesta's email account were hacked and a lot of damaging and embarrassing material was released onto the internet.

Next:

American intelligence officials believe that Russia also penetrated databases housing Republican National Committee data, but chose to release documents only on the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked.

So here's the crucial disputed question of fact: Were the GOP servers also hacked? We're not told what evidence supports the belief that the GOP servers were also hacked, but the GOP says they were not. Yet some "intelligence officials believe" it was. Why? Where's the "swell of evidence" you were going to tell me about?

Even if that fact were nailed down, there would still be more leaps needed to get to the conclusion. First: Was there any embarrassing material? What? If I knew what, I could begin to think about the next question: Why would embarrassing material be withheld? All I can see from the supposed "swell of evidence" here is an assumption that if the DNC was hacked, the GOP committee was also hacked, and that if bad material was found in the DNC server, bad material would also be found in the GOP server, and since we only saw the DNC material, there must have been a conscious decision — by whom?! — to leak only the DNC things and that decision must have been made to help Trump win. That's not evidence itself, only inference based on evidence.

Finally, there are a few paragraphs about why "Putin and the Russian government" might be thought to prefer a Trump presidency to a Clinton presidency. Trump and Putin have given each other some compliments.

That's no swell of evidence! That's a lot of leaping guesswork. And this is nothing more than I already read in the article the NYT put out on December 9th, which I put effort into combing through and rejected for the same reasons I'm putting in this new post.

This might be the biggest fake news story I've ever seen!

Squirreled away at the end of the article is the admission that people at the FBI are skeptical about the conclusion. An unnamed "senior American law enforcement official" told the NYT that "the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions" and that "any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media." The NYT observes that the FBI holds itself to "higher standards of proof," since its work is geared toward prosecuting criminal cases in court, but: "The C.I.A. has a broader mandate to develop intelligence assessments."

I'm staring at that headline again. You said there was a "swell of evidence." Shouldn't that satisfy the FBI's higher standard rather than the good-enough-for-the-CIA standard? I think I see the reason for the different standards. The CIA is concerned about what might happen in the future. But why are we trusting them in an FBI/CIA disagreement about what happened in the past?

The very end of the NYT article is about the FBI investigating "numerous possible connections between Russians and members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle, including former Trump aides like Paul Manafort and Carter Page, as well as a mysterious and unexplained trail of computer activity between the Trump Organization and an email account at a large Russian bank, Alfa Bank." This investigation began in the summer and seems to have played out by September and October — for reasons that are "are not entirely clear" and that the FBI won't talk about.

Speaking of embarrassing material... that headline, with that content... in the NYT. So awful.

I'm distracted into reading about the word "swell" in my dictionary (the OED). One usually reads of a swell of the sea or of music or emotion.  "Fenc'd no where from the least Surge or Swell of the Water," wrote Daniel Dafoe. "And up the valley came a swell of music on the wind," wrote Tennyson.  "Of all the actors who flourished in my time... Bensley had most of the swell of soul, was greatest in the delivery of heroic conceptions, the emotions consequent upon the presentment of a great idea to the fancy," wrote Charles Lamb.

But swell of evidence...

Swell is the talk of upwelling emotion and romanticism.

Swell is a tell.

Who is Hillary like?

After shifting policies to mirror Trump... now she copies his hair! pic.twitter.com/2cAQYGBb7m

— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) August 15, 2016

Drudge says she's emulating Trump, but Maureen Dowd says Hillary — and not Trump — is carrying on the George W. Bush tradition:

All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can’t rally behind their flawed candidate is crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes and exit strategies, is getting old.

They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up — unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.

The Republicans have their candidate: It’s Hillary.... 

"Republicans Accused of Plagiarizing Entire Convention Scenario from Book of Revelation."

“The first thing that struck me, on Night One, was when the sun became black as sackcloth of hair and the moon like blood... That was just too close to be a coincidence.”

Why is Trump's convention stage set done in silver and not his trademark gold?

Politico says "RNC unveils dramatic Trump convention stage" and shows a model of the set, which is aggressively silver, as if to say not gold, which makes sense. It's the Republican National Convention, not the Trump Convention.

Wexit.

"Conservative columnist George Will told PJM he has officially left the Republican Party and urged conservatives not to support presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump even if it leads to a Democratic victory in the 2016 presidential election."

"With proof that #Bernie never even had a chance, I shall double down and vote #BernieOrBust in Nov. @TheDemocrats."

That's a tweet reacting to a memo in the hacked DNC files that — as the NY Post puts it — "appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed."

A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 — a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”...

The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”

According to The Hill, the Post is doing the bidding of the RNC:

The Republican National Committee is promoting a report that accuses the Democratic Party of conspiring to nominate Hillary Clinton in the early days of the presidential primary. In an email, the RNC sent to reporters a story published by the New York Post about a document that purportedly shows the Democratic National Committee was strategizing to make Hillary Clinton president — and not a generic Democratic candidate — in the spring of 2015....

The RNC sent out the article in an email blast to reporters, highlighting a point in the report that the memo “appears to show the DNC working on behalf of Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.”...

The RNC push comes as Clinton and Sanders are in discussions after the end of the Democratic primary to unify the party.

I don't know if the DNC was promoting the report that the RNC is promoting the report that the DNC was promoting Hillary. So many layers, such loathsome, lazy media. I'm not sure who to hate the most. Oh, right: Donald Trump. 

Let's talk about this illustration of Trump that Rolling Stone used for "R.I.P., GOP: How Trump Is Killing the Republican Party."

Here's the article, by Matt Taibbi, which has the subtitle "Donald Trump crushed 16 GOP opponents in one of the most appalling, vicious campaigns in history. His next victim? The entire Republican Party." I don't really feel I need to read that. I clicked over there because I saw the illustration, in cropped form, over at Facebook, and I wondered what the hell it was supposed to be. You have to scroll down for the illustration, which is very nicely drawn by Victor Juhasz. Rolling Stone just plopped some video at the top of the page, but I've got to say that I love where the freeze frame just happens to be on my browser:



Speaking of DEATH!!! Hell, man. The party of Reagan is like a big, gooey sandwich, sliced down the middle by Donald Trump and sadistically eased apart by his famously tiny hands so that the gloppy cheese that is the establishment stretches with agonizing stringiness and the delectable ham remains securely ensconced within the thick slabs of the well-toasted bread of the people.

Now, step away from the sandwich — you've had enough, Miss Piggy — and feast your eyes on the fine Juhasz drawing of Trump as the Grim Reaper. The reference is to the chess game with death in the Ingmar Bergman movie "The Seventh Seal":



From the above-linked Wikipedia summary of the Bergman movie:

Disillusioned knight Antonius Block (Max von Sydow) and his nihilistic squire Jöns (Gunnar Björnstrand) return after fighting in the Crusades and find Sweden being ravaged by the plague. On the beach immediately after their arrival, the knight encounters Death (Bengt Ekerot), personified as a pale, black-cowled figure resembling a monk. The knight, in the middle of a chess game he has been playing alone, challenges Death to a chess match, believing that he can forestall his demise as long as the game continues. Death agrees, and they start a new game.

So the GOP invited Trump to play the game.

The knight and squire enter a church...  The knight goes to the confessional where he is joined by Death in the robe of a priest.... Upon revealing the chess strategy that will save his life, the knight discovers that the priest is Death, who promises to remember the tactics....

Trump learned how the GOP was playing the game.

After hearing Death state "No one escapes me" the knight knocks the chess pieces over, distracting Death while the family slips away. 

#NeverTrump!!!

Death places the pieces back on the board, then wins the game on the next move. 

Indiana!

He announces that when they meet again, the knight's time—and that of all those traveling with him—will be up....

Convention time. Here's the GOP on its way to Cleveland...



They go further away, away from the sunrise, in their stately dance to the dark country beyond the horizon while the rain gently washes their faces and cleanses the tears from their cheeks....

When Trump met Ryan...

"The two men met at the Republican National Committee first thing on Thursday morning, with Reince Priebus, the committee’s chairman, as a chaperone."

Mr. Ryan gave no public signal that he was poised to back Mr. Trump, and two people briefed on their private meeting said they did not discuss a possible endorsement. But... [a]t a news conference, Mr. Ryan said he had found the meeting encouraging and pleasant... [and that] he and Mr. Trump had discussed the constitutional separation of powers, Supreme Court justices and abortion, among other subjects.

Mr. Ryan said he had found Mr. Trump a “very warm and genuine person.” “Donald Trump and I have had our differences — we talked about those differences today,” Mr. Ryan said, adding, “I do believe that we are now planting the seeds to get ourselves unified.”

Sounds as though they stress constitutional law for some reason — perhaps because Trump has given off some signs that he doesn't much care about or understand the role of law in the United States. 

And, just now, the 2 men issued this joint statement:

The United States cannot afford another four years of the Obama White House, which is what Hillary Clinton represents. That is why it’s critical that Republicans unite around our shared principles, advance a conservative agenda, and do all we can to win this fall. With that focus, we had a great conversation this morning. While we were honest about our few differences, we recognize that there are also many important areas of common ground. We will be having additional discussions, but remain confident there’s a great opportunity to unify our party and win this fall, and we are totally committed to working together to achieve that goal. We are extremely proud of the fact that many millions of new voters have entered the primary system, far more than ever before in the Republican Party's history. This was our first meeting, but it was a very positive step toward unification.

They are there already, no? This is just padding, for the sake of pride, maybe, or for the comfort of the neverTrumper crowd.

Now that Trump is the GOP nominee, shouldn't Republicans want to see Merrick Garland confirmed?

I'm seeing a fair amount of discussion of a point I'd been making — if not on this blog, then in person on a couple panels I've done at the law school: The GOP should want to confirm Garland now.

Garland was a moderate choice for a Democratic President. After an election won by a Democrat — presumably Hillary — we'll almost surely see a more strongly liberal nominee. Conservatives shouldn't hang onto much hope that Donald Trump — if he's elected — would nominate someone who'll turn out to be a solid conservative. So it's a good time to take the known person, Merrick Garland.

Aside from the effect on the Supreme Court, the theater of confirmation could — at this point — do the Republicans in the Senate some political good. The congressional elections are important, not everything should be about Donald Trump, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is a place where the party can display itself as dedicated and principled. I'm sure Ted Cruz — a member of the committee — can help with the show.

"The Stop Trump movement is a flailing exercise in self-indulgence that cannot get its act together, let alone chart a path to victory."

"The movement’s most delusional champions imagined for a brief moment—around the time of the Wisconsin primary—that they could get things going for Texas Senator Ted Cruz, the only Republican contender who is less appealing than Trump. Cruz won Wisconsin, but then started on a losing streak that began with a miserable third-place finish in New York—behind not just Trump but also Ohio Governor John Kasich. Now Cruz has lost five more states.... The movement’s anointed one, Ted Cruz, was not just losing. In at least three of the states, the Texan was running behind Kasich.... The Republican Party is melting down, not because of Trump or because of the Stop Trump challenge but because the whole mess is so dispiriting."

Writes John Nichols in The Nation.

The Kasich-Cruz deal: "Mr. Kasich won’t compete in Indiana; Mr. Cruz won’t compete in New Mexico and Oregon."

"When you consider the delegate rules of these states, it’s an arrangement that could give the non-Trump candidates a much better chance of denying Mr. Trump the nomination," muses Nate Cohn at the NYT.

[T]he whole Republican contest could come down to Indiana. The state has 57 pledged delegates, and it awards those delegates on a winner-take-all basis statewide and by congressional district. As a result, the difference between a narrow win and a loss is huge for Mr. Trump. If he wins statewide — even by a point — it will be fairly easy for him to reach 1,237 delegates with a victory in California, which on paper is probably an easier state for him than Indiana.

The most recent polls show Mr. Trump leading in Indiana with around 40 percent of the vote. That’s a number low enough for him to be vulnerable, but Mr. Kasich has been at 19 percent in an average of the same surveys — giving Mr. Cruz a very narrow path to victory.

So... Kasich is stepping aside, but that doesn't prevent Hoosiers from voting for him, if he's their style. Meanwhile, is Cruz boosted by this deal? It seems to me that it makes him look like a deal maker, which changes his brand. His brand is principle and ideology. Not only is deal-maker not Cruz's brand, it's Trump's brand.

AND: "Ted Cruz-John Kasich Alliance Against Donald Trump Quickly Weakens":

Mr. Cruz trumpeted what he called the “big news” in Indiana, a state that appears pivotal to stopping Mr. Trump from winning a majority of delegates. “John Kasich has decided to pull out of Indiana to give us a head-to-head contest with Donald Trump,” the Texas senator said.

But at his own campaign stop in Philadelphia on Monday, Mr. Kasich tamped down Mr. Cruz’s triumphalism. Voters in Indiana, Mr. Kasich said, “ought to vote for me,” even if he would not be campaigning publicly there. He added, “I don’t see this as any big deal.”

So he's not good at deals. Don't tout the deal before it's locked down. Cruz seems to have offended Kasich somehow. Deal-maker is not his forte.

ALSO: A dialogue at FiveThirtyEight, "Will The Kasich-Cruz Alliance Work?" Excerpt:

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): My question is whether you guys are looking at this too much in a vacuum. Yes, if you combined Cruz’s and Kasich’s support, Trump would probably lose Indiana. But as I wrote this weekend, the most important development of the past couple of weeks might be that Trump is successfully persuading Republicans that “the system is rigged,” or at least that he’s clearly going to win the plurality so they might as well get this over with.

clare.malone: Are you wondering if the sheeple are going to follow this directive, Nate?

natesilver: I think some of Kasich’s voters will follow it, yes. But I also think it could give Trump a good talking point and persuade some undecided Republicans to go with Trump.

I agree. It reinforces Trump's narrative.

"I hope it doesn't involve violence. I hope it doesn’t. I'm not suggesting that. I hope it doesn’t involve violence..."

"... and I don’t think it will. But I will say this, it’s a rigged system, it’s a crooked system. It’s 100 percent corrupt."

Said Donald Trump today. Does he sound like he's encouraging violence even when he's saying he hopes there won't be violence? If so, it's because he doesn't say "I don't want violence" or "I urge my supporters to refrain from violence." There's something oddly passive about "I hope it doesn't involve violence" — as if he holds no sway with his supporters, as if he's suggesting it's up to the other side to resist doing the things that will necessitate violence from my people. So I hear a vague, deniable threat. And this too contains a vague, deniable threat:

The process of courting delegates, Trump said, is "rigged" because "you're basically buying people." He said he is not interested in "playing the rules game."

"Nobody has better toys than I do. I can put them on the best planes and bring them to the best resorts anywhere in the world," Trump said. “You’re basically saying, ‘Delegate, listen, we’re going to send you to Mar-a-Lago on a Boeing 757, you’re going to use the spa, you’re going to do this, you’re going to do that, we want your vote. That’s a corrupt system."

It's implied: I could do this — and I'd beat you at it — if you say this is the system and this is what we are doing.

NBC just did a poll that showed that 62% of Republican voters believe that the candidate who gets the most votes in the primaries should be the party's nominee. Chuck Todd confronted Reince Priebus with that number on "Meet the Press" today and Priebus gave the sort of answer that I think a lot of people will find irritating:

"If he was winning the majority of votes, he'd likely have the majority of delegates."

Only likely, not for sure, because of the delegate selection process.

"But that's not actually what's happening. He's winning a plurality of votes, and he has a plurality of delegates."

But he doesn't have a plurality of delegates that's proportional to his plurality of votes.

"And under the rules and under the concept of this country, a majority rules on everything."

Which doesn't mean the one with the most votes wins, only that if you get a majority you win, but not even a majority of votes, because you could get a majority of votes but not a majority of delegates, and in the end — after the funny business — a majority of delegates will decide. Does he really think the people will see that as the good old majority-wins concept?

Just 38 percent of Republicans say it's acceptable if Trump goes into the Republican convention with the most delegates but does not become the nominee, versus 54 percent who say that outcome is unacceptable.

And only 20 percent say it's acceptable if Republican delegates choose a nominee who has not run in the primaries, versus 71 percent who think that's unacceptable.

To be fair, the poll was taken before Priebus went on all the Sunday shows and put his spin on the business that Trump is calling "rigged" and "100% corrupt."

"I say to you that this path to darkness is the antithesis of all that America has meant for 240 years."

John Kasich gets ironically, brimstonily preachy about Trump and Cruz and their "political strategy based on exploiting Americans instead of lifting them up inevitably leads to divisions, paranoia, isolation and promises that can never, ever be fulfilled."

"There’s nothing that special or even good about the government-run primary process."

"The delegates have been going to conventions for years and treating them like Super Bowl parties because there was nothing else to do... But this year they have the opportunity to practice a great national tradition, to exercise their legal, historical right to defeat a man who opposes most of what they believe in, and instead nominate a candidate who represents them.... I’m interested in self-governance, in having people learn what it is that they own, and then exercising that power. Our citizens have been turned into spectators—it’s what the left wants.... This is about taking back the private party system... it is a voluntary organization and it sets its own rules... [Picture the delegates] in Cleveland, grasping their legal and historical right to nominate the most powerful person in the world....The delegates may not know it, but they will not only be saving the Republican Party and the country—they’ll be reviving a tradition of self-governance."

Says Eric O’Keefe, quoted by Kimberley A. Strassel in the WSJ in "The Case for a Really Open GOP Convention/The man who defeated Wisconsin prosecutors now says party delegates have the right to choose any nominee they want, and they should use it."

"Ted Cruz Isn't Cheating, He's Winning."

Says Rush Limbaugh — and this is not inconsistent with what I have been saying, as I will explain. First, a bit of Rush:

Now, what happened in Colorado is, I'm sorry to say, it's not a trick. What happened in Colorado is right out in the open.... It's no secret that Colorado was gonna have a convention and they're gonna choose their delegates before the primary....  Nobody talked about it....  So it was left to be discovered by people who didn't know. And it turns out that people on the Trump campaign didn't know....

Every business has its rules and laws, bylaws, and specific ways that you have to climb the ladder of success..... So I don't see Ted Cruz lying and cheating his way to the convention. I see a lot of hard work. I see some people who know what they have to do, given where they are. They're in second place in both the vote count and the delegate count. They're serious about winning....  They have made themselves fully aware of how the process works, and they've been out working it for quite a while. They went into Louisiana where Trump scored a massive win but they've come out of there with many more delegates than, by appearances, they should have....

There's a way you get to the top in politics. People who don't like certain rules may call them loopholes and may say somebody's cheating. But that's just people using the rules as they have been written....

Fine... up to a point. And the point is: Will Cruz's winning get him all the way to the nomination? If his approach doesn't get him to 1237, where will it leave him? He may prevent Trump from getting to a majority and get the party to an open convention, but then what is his argument that the delegates should vote for him? Why should the man with the second-most delegates get the nomination? Because he was so sharp and aggressive in figuring out how to play the non-democratic part of the game?

Whether you call that cheating or not — and Trump will be encouraging us to think that it is cheating (or at least highly unfair and undemocratic) — it's the dirty work that's going to leave him looking unappealing to the American public. Trump is unappealing too, which mutes the horror Cruz would otherwise inspire. But once Cruz has done the nasty work of blocking Trump, how is he supposed to continue winning? He's working as a tool now. What's his clever scheme to become something other than a tool?

He won't be able to present himself in democratic terms, since he will have progressed along the nondemocratic route, playing the weird behind-the-scenes game that Trump failed to discover or wouldn't deign to play. At the open convention, Trump can say: I played it straight. I appealed to the people. I got the most votes. What can Cruz say? I was dumbfoundingly devious?

The incoherent notion that the GOP convention must pick Trump or Cruz.

On "Meet the Press" today, Chuck Todd interviewed Glenn Beck. Beck, a Cruz supporter, was there to argue that if there's an open convention, the delegates should be limited to choosing between Trump and Cruz (and should pick Cruz). Todd does enough to show Beck's incoherence but doesn't really nail him down:

CHUCK TODD: Let me start with this concern. We've heard it from many people that are Cruz supporters and that Trump supporters over the airwaves, who are concerned that somehow the party establishment may deny both of them. What would happen do you think to, what would your listeners, how would they react?

GLENN BECK: I think it would be the end of the G.O.P. ...

CHUCK TODD: So you think if Paul Ryan is somehow plucked as the Republican nominee, that it would be the end of the G.O.P. --

GLENN BECK: -- I think it would be very bad. You can't disenfranchise people. We've all gone out. We've been passionate about it. We've all been going back and forth and voted on the people that we believe. I really think it has to be one of the two frontrunners. I just think people would feel very betrayed....

I know he wants Cruz, but he's mischaracterizing what the people are doing. We were enfranchised when we voted in a primary and our vote was given the effect that we were told it would have toward selecting delegates who would vote on our behalf at a convention. And let's be clear about where the passion is and is not. Many of us in Wisconsin who voted for Cruz were voting to stop Trump and to get to an open convention where we hope to see Paul Ryan selected. Don't imagine some passion on our part that augments that passion of yours. If the GOP convention picks Paul Ryan, I wouldn't feel betrayed. I'd feel vindicated.

Suit the suits.

"There is no question that [Cruz] has been a polarizing figure, and it’s kind of ironic that a lot of people who were so critical of him are now jumping on the bandwagon because it suits their needs."

Said Ben Carson.

"Paul Ryan Is Running for President."

Jonathan Chait lays out the evidence. Ryan is in the position where he could make a "Sherman statement" and his statements have fallen short of that extreme (that you won't run if nominated and won't serve if elected).

Begged by conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt to save the party, Ryan demurred:

I do believe people put my name in this thing, and I say get my name out of that. This is, if you want to be president, you should go run for president. And that’s just the way I see it ... I think you need to run for president if you’re going to be president, and I’m not running for president. So period, end of story.

This statement is being reported as a firm denial of interest, but it should be understood in context. Ryan’s history is to acquire a reputation as lacking ambition even as he rockets up the ranks....

What’s more, the scenario under which Ryan would get the nomination is one in which the party has denied it to the candidate who received the most primary votes and to the candidate who received the second-most. The party’s primary task would be to defuse their rage and sense of betrayal....  Ryan is positioning himself as a peacemaker between the Trump and anti-Trump factions.

That is, the best way for Ryan to run is to have this appearance of not running.

In a similar doing-by-not-doing way, many of us here in Wisconsin today are voting for Paul Ryan by voting for Ted Cruz: "Wisconsin votes Tuesday for … Paul Ryan!"

"Can You Get Trump To 1,237?"

A great graphic at FiveThirtyEight.

"If they wanted to, the delegates could deploy a 'nuclear option' on Trump and vote to unbind themselves on the first ballot..."

"... a strategy Ted Kennedy unsuccessfully pursued against Jimmy Carter in 1980," observes Nate Silver.

Although I’d place fairly long odds against this thermonuclear tactic, there’s also the possibility of piecemeal skirmishes for delegates. In South Carolina, for instance, delegates might unbind themselves on the pretext that Trump withdrew his pledge to support the Republican nominee. Remember those chaotic Nevada caucuses that Trump won? They could be the subject of a credentials challenge. There could also be disputes over the disposition of delegates from Marco Rubio and other candidates who have dropped out of the race. A final possibility is “faithless delegates,” where individual delegates simply decline to vote for Trump despite being bound to do so by party rules. It’s not clear whether this is allowed under Republican rules, but it’s also not clear what the enforcement mechanism would be.

By convention time, we'll know what the margin is. If Trump has the majority, 1,237, or a bit more, there is still a game to be played. If he has only 1,237, the majority is lost if just one of those delegates flips, for any of a range of technical or political reasons. Trump has to keep wrangling his delegates, and how will he do that among these "mostly dyed-in-the-wool Republican regulars and insiders"?

Trump has a lot of pride in his knowledge of how things work in the real world — how China is "killing us" in these trade deals, etc. etc. — other politicians are naive and he's the one man who can bring expertise in handling wily people who are trying to take advantage. But the real world of this delegate game has brought him up short. It must really hurt his pride, privately, and it hurts his image publicly.

Remember how, in his meeting with the RNC about the wrangling of the delegates, "Mr. Trump turned to his aides and suggested that they had not been doing what they needed to do." That's a nightmare for him. He suddenly sees the dimension of the game he's been so proud of playing so well, and he's ill-equipped to enlarge the operation into something that can work in the coming phase. I'm picturing him losing heart, losing steam. He got so inflated about the polls and how much he'd been winning. And now he sees he's only winning in Part 1, and he didn't even understand Part 2. He doesn't have a team that could play Part 2.

Trump is going to have to rely entirely on a direct appeal to the people. He'll argue that it's outrageous and undemocratic to deny him the nomination. But the decision will be made at a convention where there's a vote — that's democracy too — of a set of delegates. And a majority of them are going to be opposed to him — even if a majority are pledged to him.