The story of the race is not Trump. The story is the emphatic popular rejection of Republican party leadership. Combined, the anti-Washington forces have won two-thirds of the vote and over three-fourths of the delegates — a landslide that is even more impressive if you assume (as I do) that much of Marco Rubio’s support came from conservatives who saw him as the candidate most electable in November (i.e., Rubio was not, strictly speaking, the “establishment alternative”).

It has become trendy to handicap the race in terms of the “Trump lane” (or “populist lane”), the “conservative lane,” and the “establishment lane.” That gives the establishment far too much credit. It had no lane; it was more like a narrow Beltway bike path, snarling traffic and annoying pedestrians. Sure there was an ocean of money, but there was no popular support. That is why serial contenders fell by the wayside (Walker, Graham, Bush, Christie), just as Kasich will sooner or later.

Most remarkable is the SID phenomenon: the higher one’s status in Republican leadership, the less one’s influence over Republican voters, and hence over the GOP nomination battle. SID leads us to a final bit of Washington un-wisdom: the purportedly pressing matter of “uniting the party.” The questions are posed: Can Trump change, can he clean up his act in order to entice establishment support? Can Cruz change, can he mend fences with GOP leaders he has antagonized in order to bring them into his fold?

Again, that is the wrong way to look at it. What needs changing, desperately, is the Republican party. The establishment needs to make itself acceptable to supporters of these candidates, not the other way around.