What do you think the outcome of a Brokered Convention would be for the Republican Party?

What do you mean brokered? If Trump pulls it off, then the RNC needs to belly up, pull in behind the winner and drive on.

At some time in history, I believe a brokered convention was the norm, or at least not unusual. I do not think it would be good for either party now. Many of us have had a belly full of the "politically elite", and a brokered convention smacks of the politically elite disregarding our will. The great thing about our system is we get the government we elect. The bad thing about our system is we get the government we elect. Thank God the founding fathers develop a system that can tolerate a lot of abuse by knuckleheads.

The GOP is once again doing all within its power to hand the WH to the other side.

A convention which would not have a predetermined candidate would be great. That would help the candidates form well thought out positions on the major issues well before the November election and hopefully draw the attention of independents and democrats to watch something that hasn't occurred since 1968 SFC Justin Scott. I think a contentious convention would make for a stronger candidate and hopefully reenergize the party and draw independents into the mix.

Can you say, a third party!

Embarrasing as it is, I'm not sure what a brokered convention is.

Trump is capitalizing on the betrayal that Cruz didn't quite capture.

SFC Justin Scott he does make some good points. I think the best thing about trump is that his candidacy can ruin the two party system that has failed so miserably. Again we are halfway to the North Korean voting model the way the DNC and RNC shove their candidates down the voting public's throat as the only choices (North Korea has an election with only one name on the ballot). I vote for a third party candidate, and I am told that I have wasted my vote. I think that any vote for a candidate that the individual casting the vote doesn't truly believe in is a wasted vote. I think that there are far too many wasted votes. That is not to say that there are not a large number of people who do truly believe that Hillary, Bernie, Donald, Ted, or Marco are the best choice. What I do say is that instead of casting ballots now to see who will be the anointed ones of the RNC and DNC (at the public's expense), that they should all be on the November ballot, and let's see who the people believe is the best choice overall. Of course there is no money to be made in having just one general election with all qualified candidates on the ballot so that will not happen.
Imagine a campaign where Hillary not only has to contrast her ideas to fellow democrats, but with all of the other candidates. It makes attack adds difficult because keeping straight who the attack add is in support of muddies the waters. At that point the campaign adds have to be about the substance of the candidate so that they send a clear message: This is candidate, this is what candidate believes, this is why candidate is good for America, go vote.
Now I am going to ride into the sunset on my unicorn because that is more feasible than any election reform.

Love to see a floor fight with horse-trading lije the old days. Lincoln made deals to get the votes, such as giving ambassador appointments and post master jobs to sons-in-laws. That's the way it worked, and still does in a Democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/08/04/how-many-more-white-votes-did-mitt-romney-need-to-get-elected-in-2012-a-lot/

Trump don't have a chance unless a huge majority of the Latino voters miraculously support Trump and his wall and forgiving his statement about Mexicans being rapist and drug dealers.