This helps explain why GOP primary voters, who are staying home in droves, feel a bit like they woke up in one of those "Twilight Zone" episodes in which they're the same but everybody else is weirdly different. Each of the candidates offers good reasons to like them, but if you just tilt your head or if the lighting changes, they look unappealing. This is why so many people have started daydreaming about sending the field to a chop shop and rebuilding from scratch.
It's also why many are talking about a brokered, contested or open convention, even those people -- like GOP strategist Karl Rove and radio host Hugh Hewitt -- who insist that the chances for such an outcome are, in Rove's words, as "remote as life on Pluto."
I don't buy it.
"You can make up all kinds of scenarios," Rove explained on "Fox News Sunday." "But in all likelihood what happens in the dynamic of the primaries, once somebody starts to win they keep on winning."
Except, as Chris Wallace dryly noted, "Here, nobody keeps winning." That's because Republicans keep voting against the front-runners -- because they don't like them.
The naysayers insist we're stuck with these candidates because that's the way things are, based on precedent and delegate math.
I see it differently. The experts have been wrong about quite a lot of late -- Barack Obama, the Tea Party, the Middle East, etc. Heck, Pluto isn't even a planet anymore.
If these four candidates are unacceptable to a majority of Republicans, they won't be accepted -- and something else will have to happen. What that "something else" will be, I don't know. But given the state of medical technology, a wild convention seems more plausible than sewing together the good bits from the current pack.