The Sick Left; Alaskan Mayor Found Dead Lib's Tweet These Palin "Connections"

UPDATE; Democrat in feature article bizarrely includes Palin in article on
"progressive Gay marriage supporting Mayor found dead"
**********************************************


That there is a manifest sickness among liberals has been made clear by their crazed ranting on Twitter. That it could descend into a circle of Hell that even Dante couldn't imagine in his wildest fantasies has been proven, yet again, today.

Following on from this tragedy (the full details of which are not available at this writing)

Mayor of Alaska's remote capital Greg Fisk found dead

Alaska's capital city is in mourning after its newly elected mayor was discovered dead at his home.

Juneau police in a statement identified the man as 70-year-old Stephen "Greg" Fisk, who handily defeated incumbent Merrill Sanford in the October election to become mayor.

A man found Fisk's body at a residence on Tuesday and alerted authorities.

The Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) sufferers, and leftists who think they are very clever, used the death of this person to express their hate and stupidity to their utter shame.

Her are just some of the people, or rather alleged humans, who found Mayor Fisk'a death amusing and an opportunity to spread leftist hate towards Palin;

Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website 

"Trump And Palin 2016" Campaign Items

Firstly to show that Trump and Palin is literally "old hat" (in a good way) and that clever minds
have been considering this for a long time.

I have little doubt many more such items 2016 will be commercially available when Trump is confirmed as the candidate and I look forwards to updating these pages with them in due course. Any (including 2012 ones) that are spotted by readers would be most welcome to be included!

Now;

When "Big Palin Fan" Trump "Waited On Palin's Intentions" Before Endorsing.

 

The Palin and Trump cordial relationship goes much further back than the 'Pizza Summit". It well predates Palin's interview with Trump when she was temporarily hosting 

at OANN, and of course if goes much further back than their recent double book signing at Trump Towers.

Trump advised at the start of the current GOP presidential nomination campaign that he "would love to have Governor Palin in my administration." 

When asked on Sarah Palin’s Mama Grizz Radio’s “The Palin Update” Monday whether he would seek the former Alaska governor’s advice as president or potentially appoint her to an executive-branch position, Trump said, “I’d love that.”
She’s really somebody who knows what’s happening. She’s a special person. She’s really a special person. And I think people know that and she’s got a following that’s unbelievable,” he continued. (Palin has more than 4 million Facebook followers.)

“I’m looking at some of these candidates, they’re weak, they’re ineffective and to a degree that’s almost hard to believe. And, you know, they like the Sarah Palin kind of strength. You just don’t see very much of it anymore,” Trump mused."

Such comments endeared Trump to a number of Palin supporters (myself included) as did Newt Gingrich's advice in the 2012 campaign that "I would certainly consider Palin as my VP/Secretary of energy" (she subsequently voted for him in the primary.) In both cases support for them increased strikingly subsequently.

Palin has taken great pains to speak kindly of as many of the current candidates as possible whilst advising that "it is to early" for her to endorse anyone of them. That said, her positive comments on Donald Trump have been numerous and noteworthy, and it would appear obvious that she would have no problem in endorsing him.

This is no matter of some political convenience with Trump dangling the bauble of some possible future office. Palin is just not made that way. Nor is her obvious friendliness towards Trump some Machiavellian plan to ensure she gets a cabinet post. One gets the feeling Palin would be just as happy, if not happier, doing what she has been doing, writing, speaking out about matters of concern and faith, and populating congress with her endorsed candidates.

That Trump holds Palin not only in personal but political respect goes back, at least, to the 2012 campaign. I canvassed these matters in 2012 when Palin's intentions were not known (or fully formed). A number of points were, as it turns out, quite prescient it appears.

The key points are that Trump was so respectful of Palin as a person and possible presidential candidate that he held back before making any endorsement decisions. Secondly, and which puts the lie to "Trump is really a Democrat" (or "Democratic party plant") his robocall for the GOP candidate Bob Turner (who won) in the election to replace disgraced Dem Anthony Weiner.

The bottom line is "Trust Trump and Trust Palin"

***************************************************************

TRUMP WAITS ON PALIN'S DECISION IN 2012 CAMPAIGN

In discussing the Trump/Perry get together in New York, where Perry is the latest potential GOP candidate to make the pilgrimage, Politico's James Hohmann advises (emphasis mine-the post is also at the bottom of this page)

"Trump likes the Texas governor but is reluctant to endorse a candidate until Sarah Palin's intentions are know
Of course, the comment is unattributed, but given the fact that Trump has not yet endorsed there appears to be basis for confidence in it. However there are some, perhaps, highly significant aspects to the possible Palin endorsement by Trump.

If Trump endorsed Palin she might get a substantial boost in the and it is common sense that a substantial element of Trump's potential support would be transferred to Palin.

If Trump would accept the VP slot then such a ticket would have massive appeal and, importantly massive funding. The leftist media and satirists could dine out on it but they are discredited along with their chosen one President Obama and the mood of the country is a populist one. there could be no more populist ticket than Palin/Trump.

In the electoral college such a ticket could do very well with Palin bringing in the south and west and Trump assisting in the rust belt states, where his message of industrial recovery and protectionism would resonate strongly. Given the current polling in Pennsylvania he might bring in enough support to swing that state and thus the election.

If the ticket did lose then Trump would be perfectly positioned for 2016 as a loyalist, thus erasing any problems in his past in that area and heir apparent and with his resources and credibility as a candidate (who would not be blamed for a 2012  loss) he would be a shoo in for the nomination and after 8 years of Obama probably would be elected. Thus a Palin VP slot would be a very shrewd move for him in that respect.

Looked at from another angle. If Palin does not run then there is a danger that Trump might well go third party which would guarantee the re-election of President Obama, whilst destroying the GOP and his electoral college chances. Trump would take enough votes from the GOP in such places as Florida/Virginia/Ohio to let Obama slip through. This would of course destroy any hopes he might have for the GOP nomination in 2016.

The safest and best place for Trump and the GOP would be for him to be safely locked in as VP candidate to Palin which would give him a bright future whichever way things went in the election. Trump and Palin are two smart people and perhaps this scenario has crossed their minds and was the subject of conversation over pizza in NYC.

"TRUMP TOWER MINDMELD – THE DONALD LIKES PERRY, BUT HE’S WAITING ON PALIN: 

Donald Trump feels his meeting with Rick Perry last night at Trump Tower went well. The pair had dinner at Jean George after. The New York businessman went home impressed by Perry, who he thinks is a straight shooter with an impressive story to tell. They have been speaking by phone for six weeks. 

Trump likes the Texas governor but is reluctant to endorse a candidate until Sarah Palin's intentions are known, a source familiar with his thinking tells Morning Score. He is a big Palin fan. Trump is coming off his role as a robocaller for Congressman-elect Bob Turner, who won in the NYC district Trump grew up in. Turner thanked Trump in his victory remarks. "

UPDATE; Second Establishment Candidate Surges;GOP ESTABLISHMENT FINALLY FINDS THEIR ANTI-TRUMP

UPDATE; But look "Surging Jim" Gilmore goes from zero to 2.8% in same poll leapfrogging
Rand Paul. Fiorina and even  Pataki! In fact, adding the margin of error Gilmore may be within reach of Christie and at the main debate.


It would be impossible for this poll to be wrong as polls are always right and in fact Alana Wise at Reuters uses it to show Trump has "fallen 12 points" ! Some might say, biased conservatives no doubt, that 

"It's a silly poll. It is a IPSOS 5 day tracking poll with ridiculous ups and downs. They are taking the '12 point drop" from a high of over 42% just after Paris to 31% in their latest. 31% is his basic average for weeks. The same poll has Gilmore at 2.5% from nothing!"

But that would be wrong. It's a great day for the GOP Establishment with two surging challengers to Trump.


By guest Editor A.Eritas

The GOP Establishment, and their allies in the media have been living in a combination of fear and frustration as Donald Trump, despite so many predictions, has not only continued to stay in the GOP presidential nomination race but lead it and lead it substantially.

All the usual ploys, threatening to withhold funding, tempting offers of a cabinet post or other position of influence had no effect on the self-funding billionaire who in turn threatened to run as an independent if "not treated fairly."

The Establishment, which couldn't act overtly through fear of Trump bolting and thus dooming the party 's presidential chances in 2016, mounted, through its media allies, a campaign of support for one "acceptable" candidate after another. Variously Governor Walker's and Governor Perry's campaigns not only didn't catch fire and then fizzle they just expired from lack of interest.
Chris Christie and John Kasich, two more Establishment choices struggle to get to 5%.

Perhaps the greatest hope for the Beltway was Carly Fiorina. A "safe option" having a business background and of course being a woman, a possible valuable counter to Hillary. But despite all the media's heavy lifting, their overblown praise of her "outstanding debate performance" and Megyn Kelly having Fiorina as an almost permanent fixture, her campaign has collapsed after a brief flurry.

All the Establishment's eggs seemed to be in Marco Rubio's basket but for all their efforts his campaign seems stalled. The alternative, the forthcoming PAC funded massive media attacks on Trump, are doomed if past history is a guide. What to do?

It looks like, surprisingly, the Establishment has found their man-George Pataki.

Pataki's campaign has been considered quixotic, an afterthought and an odd "vanity" puzzle. Why would a former Governor, with little if any national profile and no backing or major funding, not only run for president but stay in the campaign whilst struggling to get to 1%?

This is where not only Pataki's genius but also the Establishment's comes into view. Clearly the "last Establishment man standing" effect which Pataki surely must have worked out would happen, has worked to his clear sighted advantage.

 Staying out of the spotlight and Trump's attacks, whilst ensuring he had no media coverage and showed no personality whatsoever has, in hindsight, provided the Establishment with exactly the sort of candidate they are looking for-safe and sound "Let George do it."

The GOP Establishment and America needs another candidate in the Dole/Romney mold and Pataki is such, in fact even more so. This is not the time for a dynamic, anti-Washington anti-Hillary leader and Pataki's sudden and striking poll rise proves it.

According to the just released Reuters Ipsos poll Pataki has risen some 2,733% in the last week-what other candidate could say that? He is, given the margin of error of 6.1%, possibly ahead of former high flyer Fiorina and less than 1 point behind Rand Paul! 

Going from 0.6% on November 23rd to 1.7% today is a massive proportionate leap and a sign surely that the Establishment can now put all their efforts behind Pataki to bring Trump down. 

Let George do it by George!

Donald Trump Is The Heir of Andrew Jackson Against The Elites

Donald Trump's willingness, at great political risk, to take on the MSM and it's "pundits" is a classic example of Jacksonian "grit" in action. It is Reaganite, think the air traffic controllers strike and "I paid for this microphone." It shows the strength of character to put everything on the line for principles.

Now, as in Andrew Jackson's time, the Establishment and their allies in the media are throwing everything possible (it's no coincidence they are moved to remove Jackson from the currency) at Trump.With the support of the great mass of Americans who have had enough of the elite's prescriptions he can win but it will be a hard fight.

A study of the attitude of historians*, especially of the patrician sort, to the "crass democracy' which had produced, in combination with the new Jacksonian style politics, the Presidency of Andrew Jackson (and had ousted their upper middle class strata from that leadership role in society) has a firm resonance with the attitude to Donald Trump by the historians and pundits from the right and left who inhabit that same strata today.

Those from this class on the right express the same ambivalence to popular democracy as exemplified by James Parton the Jacksonian historian whose 1860 "The Life of Andrew Jackson" is considered one of the finest biographies of our 7th President.

If we take the overview of Parton's work included in Charles G. Sellers Jr. "Andrew Jackson versus the Historians" Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIV (March 1958) and where we have "Parton" substitute "David Brooks" and for Jackson substitute "Trump" we can see there is nothing new under the sun.

The elite will always show their true colors-with their collective noses in the air and with utter confusion in the case of the Levin/Brooks right. In fact the more "purity"conservative the pundit the more this confusion is expressed, as it is a battle against their inner nature, whereas with the liberals it is an excuse to vent their inner anger.

Or as Sellers stated it " For Parton's view of democracy is essentially ambivalent. Like many intellectuals, Parton will, at one moment, excoriate the masses for their ignorance and for vulgarizing American life; but at the next moment he will turn around and extol democracy as the mark of an enlightened society.

Periodically in the Jackson (biography), Parton will rail against the vicious mob who could " feel, but not think; listen to stump orations but not read...who could be wheedled, and flattered, and drilled by any man who was quite devoid of public spirit, principle and shame, but could be influenced by no man of honor unless he were a man of genius."

Then, a little while later he will announce that the "instinctive preferences of the people must be right" and that the "truly helpful men and women of this Republic have oftenest sprung from the cabin.... and worked their way up to their rightful places as leaders of the people, by the strength of their own arm, brain, and resolution".

That Jackson overcame this instinctive class based hatred and ridicule to become recognized as one of the greatest of presidents should be succour to the Trump supporters who, from time to time, wilt under the ongoing onslaught-especially when it comes from the right.

It is my "instinctive preference" to consider that in due course Trump will prove to these "lettered betters" that he can claim the mantle of Jackson . In doing so there is no doubt that some future historian of our present period will make the same comparison to the commentators of our day as set out here regarding the, mistaken then as ours are now, historians and"pundits" of 150 years ago.

*James Parton "The Presidency of Andrew Jackson" from Volume 111 of the "Life of Andrew Jackson" Edited by Robert V. Remini. Harper 1965

*********************************************

My Blog "M.Joseph Sheppard's A Point Of View"

is a conservative orientated site which, along with my Palin specific site, has had over 1,250,000 views. It is a growing force for Trump/Palin and general news analysis and original articles. I have been writing since 2008 and have built up a substantial following including over 1,600 (genuine) Twitter followers who readily interact.
 
Bio; "Center-right,slightly libertarian,recovered liberal, Author.'American Thinker' Writer 'Newsmax: One of 5 LeadingPundits"
  https://twitter.com/MJosephSheppard.

I have been published at American Thinker, American Journal and numerous conservative sites such as Conservative Treehouse and Bob Belvedere's "The Camp of the Saints." I am linked at Robert Stacy McCain's site "The Other McCain"and "Legal Insurrection." There is a wealth of past articles from me which a Google search will provide.

The media, and especially the blogosphere, is dominated by "progressive" leftist sites and there is a pressing need for strong, rational and in-depth conservative writing to counter this. 

With perhaps the most important election in decades coming up I would like to add my voice to this need. But it needs to have a professional presentation to effectively counter the sites backed by big corporates and donors like Soros.

I wish to have my site professionally made over (to become a web site) and estimate it would take $5000 (any support small or large would assist) to promote it and make it competitive with the likes of Salon/Daily Beast etc. Please review my writings and Tweets and if it meets your standards your assistance would be appreciated.

 If this is successful I will dedicate myself to tirelessly support the populist, pro-life,Christian values. conservative cause as exemplified by Donald Trump, Governor Palin and the basic thrust of the Tea Party.

Since we are at a crucial stage of the election period I would wish to commence this site transition within a month. If you would wish to support the concept of a hard hitting site that stands up for your values here is the support link.
gofundme.com/cmh2jmwc

The Psychopathology Of Trolls;Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) Explained

Redux; Walker/Perry/Jindal/Pataki Attack Trump "They're all gone-he's still here"

What do all these article have in common? Lack of common sense and political nous.

 To paraphrase Bruce Springsteen;
"They're all gone-he's still here"

Rick Perry 

Walker pivots from Clinton, knocks back on Trump

Bobby Jindal blasts Donald Trump as 'a narcissist'

Kasich goes for the jugular in latest Trump attack ads

UPDATE Economist Trump 36% Ipsos 38% Gravis 37% And Leads In Three New State Polls (Iowa+9)

UPDATE 

Trump's trend line speaks for itself Whale swimming amongst minnows

YouGuv/Economist to 11/23

Reuters Ipsos 5 day tracking poll.

The day before, the 23rd Trump hit 42.6%
**********************************************
 from Gravis Marketing for OANN (with a relatively low margin of error 
of +/- 3% ) as noted by Donald Trump himself;

A new state poll of Massachusetts see Trump with a massive lead of 14 points. In Iowa trump continues his lead even though Ted Cruz is hoovering up Carson's erstwhile support.Cruz will have a bit of a run like all the others and if he gets too close to Trump will feel the Trump blowtorch.

Given the evangelical GOP population in Iowa it is good that Carson continues to hold a percentage of support to prevent Cruz from getting a superior position.We will see how this plays out in due course but whatever happens in Iowa it seems unlikely that it will affect Trump in New Hampshire.

Who knows, a close second in Iowa might actually be for the best for Trump given that states recent record of its winners not going on to the nomination.

UPDATE;Trump extends Iowa lead to 9

If Trump Did Go Independent Could The GOP Still Win? Absolutely

GOP Chairman Reince Preibus and the GOP establishment are walking on eggshells as regards Donald Trump's candidacy. Trump is impervious to the usual mechanics of reining in a contender; threats to turn off the financial spigot, threats of bad media.  

The second of which has been underway from the git-go, to no avail as he vaults further into the lead, and of course Trump is self-financing. Neither does the usual carrot of the promise of a plumb congressional or party position carry any weight with the successful billionaire businessman.

The reason for this caution is twofold. The GOP Establishment views Trump as a loose cannon whose statements they consider take away attention from the"serious" i.e. Establishment backed candidates. 

And, possibly more importantly, they fear Trump will run as a third party/Independent candidate, which possibility he has not ruled out on a number of occasions, the latest being  November 22nd. 

This latest was in response to news that a Republican "hit squad Superpac a guerilla campaign to destroy "Trump is being geared up with the specific aim of raising big bucks to mount an advertising campaign against him. Trump responded by advising, again, he could go Independent "if I am not treated fairly."


Clearly the Republicans would prefer to have a straight Republican versus Democratic election in 2016 but, if Trump ran, would that necessarily mean the GOP would lose in a three way competition? The answer is, perhaps surprisingly, that under certain, and actually very plausible circumstances, a Trump run could give the election to the GOP!

How plausible is this scenario? If Trump ran and won one state, New Hampshire,where he currently has a massive lead, with its tiny 4 Electoral College votes, that could throw the election into the Republican Party dominated House of Representatives.

In the map above every balance has been considered based on recent Electoral College history. The GOP has to win Florida from the start otherwise the election is over. Since President Obama won it by less than a half of one percent a Republican win is of course a strong possibility. The rest of the map are mostly McCain/Romney won states so, again it is more than plausible to assign them to the GOP. This leaves Virginia/Iowa/Colorado as the determining states.

Since no Republican has been elected without winning Ohio, and it was marginal in 2012, it is plausibly assigned to the GOP. Virginia has been assigned to the Dem's but could easily go Republican. Similarly Iowa and Colorado have been assigned to the GOP but could go Dem (giving the Dem's 268 votes, 2 short). 

The bottom line is that there are a number of very plausible combinations which, if a Trump third party won just New Hampshire, could throw the election into the House of Representatives as none of the candidates would have the 270 votes required to be elected.

Of all potential Trump states New Hampshire, with its record of switching back and forth between GOP and Dem, it's substantial vote for Nader in 2000, its surprise support for Hillary after Obama won Iowa and seemed invincible, and independent reputation seems a very strong possibility.

 If Trump wins the Republican primary there, then it would clearly signal his chances as an independent. If Trump also won neighboring Vermont which, as Sanders shows can be quirky, then with 7 Electoral College votes the odds on no candidate having enough votes is substantial. A loss in Vermont alone would, even if the Dem's won New Hampshire, deny them them presidency as it would create a  GOP 268/ Dem 267  situation.

The popular vote tally would not come into consideration as it has not on a number of occasions, (Tilden/Cleveland/Gore) thus what would happen next is as follows:

Under the constitution, the GOP standard bearer, the Dem, and the third party candidate would be the candidates the House would decide from. (presuming no other candidate had any electoral college votes. If they did they would be eliminated from the balloting as only the top three go through for consideration)

Every state would have one vote based  on the result of each states party representation. Thus, for example New York’s one vote would go to the Dem, and Wyoming’s one vote would go to the Republican. 

It would be unlikely that the GOP would lose control of the House and the state caucus delegations in the 2016 Congressional elections, thus, on the most recent analysis, the GOP would have a majority of the 50 states votes based on caucus outcomes when balloting.

This scenario played out before. In the election of 1824 Andrew Jackson finished first with more electoral votes than John Quincy Adams, William Crawford came third and Henry Clay fourth. With Clay eliminated he threw the support of his states to Adams, who was duly elected, based on the fact of his having the majority of states.

It would not matter if the state/states Trump won voted for the Democrat as that would be only one or two delegations which would not be enough to overcome the GOP's majority of states delegations and thus the Republican would be chosen as the next president. The Senate, currently with a Republican majority would then choose the vice-president. Interestingly if the 2016 senate elections produced a tie, sitting Vice-President Biden could cast the deciding vote in favor of himself.

The above scenario is predicated on a Trump candidacy not taking so many votes from the GOP that there is a Democratic Party landslide. On the other hand Trump in this scenario might do as Perot did, according to the experts, and take votes evenly from both the Dem and GOP candidates and the above scenario would still play out. The big danger for the Republicans is not so much the Trump candidacy but who the Republican candidate was.

If it were another establishment person like Jeb Bush then the nightmare scenario for the Establishment, of the base deserting Bush for Trump, would indeed come to pass and produce a potential Electoral College disaster with Florida/Virginia/Ohio and all the other marginal states lost.

There is only one way of preventing this disaster and that is to nominate, in the case Trump goes third party, a person who can hold the base, in fact increase its turnout, gain some independent and blue collar ("Perot-ite") Dem's. 

Senator Cruz is a possibility but has limited time in government and may not have appeal to the indies and Perot-ites. It is clear to me that if Trump bolts only Governor Palin can possibly give the party a fighting chance. 

In that scenario it would be up to the GOP establishment to decide, at the convention, if they wish to lose massively (including the senate) or make a solid go of it with Palin. I have set this out in detail at;
LINK; "Trump Problem Reince Preibus? Call Sarah Palin Stat!"

From TCOS;"GOP Doesn't Need Vote Majority/Electoral College Or Supreme Court to Win In 2016"

First published at Bob Belvedere's outstanding site 'The Camp Of The Saints"

GOP HAS LITTLE KNOWN BUT POSSIBLY HUGE ADVANTAGE OVER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

It is a completely realistic proposition that the 2016 presidential election could be won by the GOP without a popular vote a majority or 270+ Electoral College votes or, as in the 2000 Bush/Gore election, the assistance of the Supreme Court.

This map of the possible state by state results clearly shows a more than strong possibility of such a tied outcome;

The vital states, Florida/Virginia/Ohio were won by President Obama in 2012 with majorities that could easily be overturned, or held, in the case of Ohio. That would make Iowa,Colorado and Nevada, all swing states, the final key to win, lose or tie.

In the map above there is a tie. To reach this situation, one vote short of the 270 to win Electoral College majority, is quite clearly a possible outcome. Further it is not dependent on either candidate having a majority of the popular vote. A number of presidential elections have been won or lost without a majority, Bush in 2000 obviously being a recent case.

In this scenario with neither candidate (whomever they are) having the 270 electoral college votes needed for outright victory, under the constitution Trump, the presumptive GOP standard bearer, and Clinton would, presuming no other candidate had any electoral college votes, have their chances determined by the House of Representatives

Every state would would caucus, have one vote based on the result of each states party representation. Thus, for example New York's one vote would go to Hillary (That state having more Democratic Congressmen than Republican) and Wyoming's one vote would go to Trump.

Given it would be unlikely that the GOP would lose control of the House in the 2016 elections and that, on the most recent analysis, the GOP would have a majority of the 50 states votes based on caucus outcomes when balloting.

The current situation regarding the caucus composition is as per this map via "Newsalert" ;

The Democratic party would cast 14 votes for Hillary. The Republicans could caucus 33 state votes for Trump and 3 states votes are undetermined at present, this could of course change either way in 2016 but it seems unlikely that whatever their final structure it would affect the outcome given the huge majority of state caucuses the GOP controls. The situation of Washington D.C.

is unclear but even if it were allowed a "caucus" vote it would not change the outcome.

Thus, without a popular vote majority nor an Electoral College one and without the aid of the Supreme Court Donald Trump could be sworn in as president in January 2016 thanks to the Constitution.

The full constitutional scenario is set out below 

The constitution is very clear on the matter. Article 12 states, inter- alia:

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."

Thus, if the no candidate with an electoral college majority scenario plays out, and presuming there are no other candidates who have won electoral votes, the House would meet to choose the next president by January 20th 2016, with the states having one vote each, whilst the Senate would meet to choose the Vice-President.

Based on the current composition, and presumably similar composition post November 2015, of the House and if voting went strictly on party lines, with no vote switching or abstentions in states with a close proportion of Republicans and Democrats, the Republican candidate would be chosen on the first ballot.

According to information supplied by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the current composition of the house by party is:

States with a Republican party majority of Representatives    33

States with a Democratic party majority of Representatives   14

States with an equal number of Representatives                      3

What can happen to cause a crisis, or give victory to the Democrats? If there are changes in swing states delegations due to a move back to the Dem's from the GOP's perhaps, high watermark result in November 2014, a Hillary landslide with long coattails.In that scenario a constitutional crisis could come into play if the Republicans lost their majority in 8 caucuses giving a 25/25 tie. 

The "stolen election" of 1876 brought the country to the brink of civil war. The election of 2016 gives the possibility of a situation where, as in 1824, when no candidate had an electoral majority, the candidate with a significant minority of popular votes might be chosen by the House under heated circumstances. 

For all these reasons, especially if the economy is at the current level of unemployment-or worse, the election of 2016 is fraught with a terrible danger for the country.These dangers could be averted, or ameliorated if, well before the actual election, the constitutional possibilities are well canvassed with the public so they are aware of what might need to be done.

Otherwise, if by the first Monday following the second Wednesday in March 2016, as the constitution requires, there is no President, the Senate's choice of Vice-President will take over-to who knows what effect.