Interesting Trump Speculation Du Jour "The Establishment's "Kennedy Solution" To Trump And "Huckabee VP"

The fact that substantial section of the political aware have accepted the fact that Donald Trump will indeed be the GOP's nominee has led to some interesting speculation from various quarters.
Some are beyond the hmmmm factor and are at the "well perhaps" level.

Two of the most interesting, to me at least, are as follows;

"Mike Huckabee would be the best choice for Trump's VP"

"Huckabee has been making favorable, comments, or comments supportive of Trump recently."
Well yes, yes he has;

"But while Huckabee praised Clinton, he harbors no expectation that Trump is offending any voters with his attacks on the former president. "Nothing's backfired on Donald Trump yet," he said. "He's played the whole media game like a kid on Christmas morning with a toy drum."'

And

"Huckabee: If Trump's Nominee 'Of Course I'll Support Him"

In the same article Huckabee attacks Cruz who is Trump's main rival in Iowa.

Which leads straight on to the next out of the box thought to wit;

"Huckabee is angling to be Trump's VP and would be the best choice as he will not only shore up Trump's conservative bona fides but ensure that evangelicals don't sit out the election as they did in 2012. This team might deliver Iowa's 6 Electoral College votes which could be vital in a close election. It also adds the experience of a governor to Trump's campaign team."

I have to admit the thought of Huckabee as Trump's VP never occurred to me, being caught up in the "It has to be a woman and if a Hispanic woman even better" concept. But with Susana Martinez in strife that may have come to a conclusion. Certainly Palin, Sandoval, Ayotte, Carson and Cruz of course remain front and center but Huckabee...hmmmm.

The second thought making the rounds has, again something to do with Trump's VP choice but in a totally different manner. It goes like this;

Trump may/will get the JFK treatment. If they can't get rid of him via the electoral process or by machinations at the convention or, in a last desperate effort by tacitly supporting Hillary  and/or pumping up a "sane' Republican to run third party the "Oswald remedy" is always at hand.

This might take place during the campaign or, if a "wait and see attitude is adopted' some time into his presidency if the powers that be are threatened. The key to this concept is to have a VP who will be an Establishment controlled person so Cruz/Carson/Palin must be blocked from getting the nod. How might that be accomplished?

Simple. The GOPe would hold out an olive branch to Trump before the VP choice advising that in return for an Establishment person as VP Trump would not only get all the money he might need for the general election but the support of the media and the party hierarchy. It's very clear such a 'devil's bargain" might not be the healthiest.

What might be Trump's safety mechanism in this scenario? Choosing a VP who, in the eyes of the Establishment, would be worse for their designs than Trump. To ensure he actually served a full four years his best choice might indeed be from among Palin/Cruz/Carson and an even more bitter pill
Rand Paul! Hmmmm indeed.

That such thoughts are circulation shows, again, the acceptance that Trump most likely will be the nominee (baring point two being put in effect early). It shows too the level of distrust, if not downright hatred of the Republican Establishment and the media which is a driving force in the rise of Trump. 

That such hatred is not held by the Establishment it would be foolish to not consider, how far that mutual mistrust might take things is a matter conjecture and there has been plenty of such so far and it shows no signs of ceasing but rather accelerating as the first primary elections come into view.

NB;I don't hold to these views but I do hold to the fact that they are significant as representative of aspects of the social and political turmoil at the end of the Obama years.

Annual Top Conservative Bloggers Awards Creme De La Creme Category

Here is my list of recommended reading-the best of 2015. These are Blog sites I regularly check into because I find them educational, brilliantly written, quirky, some are Palin-centric, take no prisoners or all of those qualities at once as the case may be.

I include the delightful "Hillaryis44" because the Blogger is all of the above and although obviously not a Republican is Palin friendly. So, IMO you would be well rewarded to give any or all of these outstanding sites a read as time permits and most certainly to bookmark them.

IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER 

(click on for links to sites)

The Other McCain

Ace Of Spades

The Last Refuge (Conservative Treehouse)

The Camp of The Saints

Hillaryis44

Right-Wing Riot

Breitbart

Right Scoop

Legal Insurrection

Gateway Pundit

Daily Caller

Conservatives4Palin 

Newsmax

Instapundit/PJ Media

Newsbusters

UPDATE;Cruz Decline Confirmed: Cruz's Poll Decline Underway? If So Last Barrier To Trump Removed

The Real Clear Politics aggregate poll of all polls is the best guide as it smooths out outlier polls which may be wrong either by too much or too little)
; UPDATE;1/29/16
 The graph tells the tale. One by one the anti-Trump candidates rise, helped in no small part by a desperate media and establishment, and one by one they fall. On December 20th Senator Cruz hti his highest level of 20.8. he has been in a steady decline subsequently and today is at 18.8

Cruz best poll was 24% it is now 17%

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

The Fiorina, Carson, Walker, Kasich, Bush, Rubio "surges" are noticeable, but like shooting stars are very brief. The exception being Ben Carson who, alone after Trump took the lead on July 20th, actually put his nose in front for three days. But in some sort of cosmic schadenfreude Carson's decline has been spectacular.

After Trump rose Bush declined. In Bush's stead Walker rose. After Walker declined Carson rose spectacularly whilst Fiorina, with the media, especially Fox's Megyn Kelly giving her every advantage, rose seemingly strikingly but from 1% which made her rise look bigger than it was. 

Fiorina's decline saw Rubio's rise from a low of 5% to touching 15% and, as with all the other candidates, it has been steadily downhill from there to 11.5% These percentages are from the Real Clear Politics aggregate "Poll of Polls" so they smooth out the distortions possibly inherent in individual polls and seem the best method we currently have to gauge popular support.

None of the other candidates have risen above the seemingly impenetrable 5% barrier. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that Carson's decline, and to possibly a lesser extent Rubio's, has seen Cruz gain a polling rise almost equal to Carson's decline. This also clearly obvious in Iowa where Carson's Evangelical support has switched to Cruz.

Carson's polling height was 24.8 on November 4th on which day Cruz was on 8.8%.Today Carson is on 10% and Cruz 18.1%. But it is Cruz's current trend which is the key to whether or not Trump runs away with the nomination by "running the board" as his team advised they look to.

A few day polling is by no means a certain indicator of future trends, but with Trump's rivals it can be safely said that once a downturn trend commences it continues on apace. The Real Clear Politics graph above shows a slight leveling off for Cruz (the black line) which reflect the 6 point drop in Cruz's polling in the last two polls;

In the Reuters tracking poll polling Cruz's decline is more marked going from 17% on December 27th to 14.4% on December 29th

In the Huffington Post Poll aggregator the six latest polls show a 10 point drop for Cruz;

And in the Iowa caucus polling Cruz drops a huge 9 points.

Newly noted excellent analysis of North Carolina;

What looks like a Cruz "surge" in Nevada holds an interesting phenomena. In the last poll from Nevada from CNN Carson was on 22% in second and Cruz was on 4% (26% combined). In this Gravis poll Carson has collapsed to 6% and Cruz has"surged to 20%. But, as is obvious, they are on 26% combined having swapped supporters. Trump is still way out in front.  

These moves may be temporary or may mark a plateau for Cruz who, on current polling stands a good chance in the Iowa caucus voting. But if these polls do, as with all the preceding candidates, mark a steady decline in Cruz's support then the road is open for Trump to simply destroy the opposition from Iowa right through to Florida (links to outstanding analysis from "Conservative Treehouse") and to the nomination.

Trump Is Dana Milbank's Yiddish Rant "Golem" Target And "Primal Scream" Therapy

UPDATE; Milbank returns to his Jewish rant shtick, this time against Ted Cruz (with an aside of rant for Trump) and, when it suits him quotes Sarah Palin (who he hates more than both) as an authority on Cruz's perniciousness. here is the utter nastiness of Dana Milbank part 2.

"The utter nastiness of Ted Cruz      <<<LINK

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

Washington Post's resident scold of all things conservative and especially the great herd of the unwashed Dana Milbank, who famously advised he would "eat my column" if Donald Trump gets the Republican nomination has shot back at Trump, in a last desperate attempt to forgo the taste of wood pulp. by appealing to his Yiddish family history.

In yet another rant, which pretends to "humor' (about Trump's use of the commonplace "schlong" which any fool knows means, in the context Trump used it "being beaten") Milbank provides a long list of Yiddish words commonplace in first, and to a lesser extent second generation Jewish immigrants. Some of these are extant like, and some pertain to Milbank of course, e.g. schlemiel, Schlump and of course shtick.

I wrote about the distorted view of society held by many leftist Jews in relation to their seemingly mad and obsessive hatred of Sarah Palin. That madness is even stranger because there is no more stronger friend of Israel than the Star of David wearing Palin.

But we are not dealing with logic as I set out below, rather 'tales learned at Granddad's knees" This obsessive hatred of true conservatives has now found a new target in Donald Trump (who has an Orthodox Jewish Daughter! not that that would ameliorate the obsession in any way as it transcends rationality.)

                                            Rabbi Loew's Golem


In  the 17th century, a time of terrible persecution for the Jews of Europe, surpassed on by the Nazi period for persecution and murder, the poor, isolated in ghetto's Jewish communities turned to mysticism, the Cabala and folk legends for comfort and solace.


One of the most powerful of these legends was of the Golem. This was an enormous creature in the shape of a man, fashioned out of clay, and brought to life by wonder-working Rabbi's, particularly Rabbi Yehuda Loew "the Maharal" in Prague. Such was the skill of the Maharal of  Prague that with the aid of an amulet placed on the Golem it could be made invisible when going on particularly risky missions.

The Golem was particularly useful in The Maharal's battles against the "Blood Libel" accusation against the Jews-that they used the blood of Christian children in the making of ceremonial matzoh bread which accusation was the cause of numerous pogroms and mass killing of Jews.

Centuries of persecutions and mass murder against the Jewish Peoples is not so easily cleared from the folk memory-even in these modern enlightened times. It is only just over 60 years since the closure of the concentration camps and it is understandable if the Jewish Peoples (as with the Armenian Peoples who still bear their scars from the massacres of the early 20th century) still are scarred 'even down to the current generation" who have no personal knowledge of any lifestyle apart from the, in the main, comfort and ease of America.

I wrote previously in trying to understand why there appears to be such a deep, illogical antipathy to Sarah Palin by many on the left and why it appears that the Jewish commentators see a disproportional element in this cascade of calumny against her

I viewed this deep antagonism as stemming from a cultural/historical background. The oppression and in some cases genocide which was very much a part of the Jewish immigrants world, especially for those from Eastern Europe, certainly is not an aspect of the day-to-day experience of modern American Jewry but for many the "tales learned at grandparents knees' affects their political outlook.


If not a family history of oppression then in many cases there will be one of the classic immigrants story of struggle and hard times and especially the great depression of the 1930's where the strong bond with the Democratic party was formed.

What has happened is that Palin has become the vehicle by which Jewish folk memories are expunged from the subconscious in a "primal scream'"(an apt description of the totality of unhinged media attacks on her in many cases.) She has become the stream of consciousness target of the "Golem" for the Jewish liberal media elite to, in an act of mass self psychoanalysis, bring to the surface the subconscious repressed hate elements against a Christian society, of which Palin is an exemplar, which, in reality bears them no ill will.

If, by this act of mass annihilation of neuroses the media can understand what has transpired, they hopefully can gain by it and move forward, as new men and women, to a more reasoned world view and address their political antipathy to Palin on a basis  of policy rather than attacking the "hidden Goy of dread" which she represents to them deep down.

I am obliged to the columnist Garry P. Jackson who published this analysis of the liberal media collusion the "journalist conspiracy" to elevate Obama in 2008 and destroy Palin. If anyone considers it far-fetched that there is a Jewish group of media personalities who worked towards that end a cursory glance at the names on the list below will quickly show the reality of the situation. The list only includes journalists-it could be expanded, for the use of this article, to include Hollywood producers, television writers/producers, actors, comedians

It is to be hoped that these media people, who have been exposed as carriers of a bias which even they do not understand the roots of, will now undertake a course of deep introspection and hopefully move forward. Even at the very least for their own credibility, which has been sorely tried because of the Arizona tragedy reporting fiasco on their part-such was their haste to destroy the "Palin" of their neuroses.

That the liberal Jewish mindset can be overcome, and that there are those who were never inflicted with it in the first place, is proven by the growing number of Republican voters amongst the Jewish community and Palin supporting blogs by Jewish intellectuals which proves there is much hope for their liberal brethren.
*******************************************************************************
Garry P. Jackson's media analysis

"With the democrat’s blood libel against Sarah Palin, it’s a good time to remind people who their media partners are. Last year the JournoList scandal broke, as e-mails revealed their was a conspiracy among some of the nation’s top “journalists” and members of academia to shape the news to fit the left-wing narrative, as well as a concerted effort to harm Sarah Palin, and protect Barack Obama. To hide his radical past, and shady associates, from the American people. 
Here are the 151 known members of the JournoList conspiracy. See how many you recognize as contributors to the blood libel of Sarah Palin, and the attacks on all Conservatives, for the actions of a left-wing mad man.


1. Spencer Ackerman – Wired, FireDogLake, Washington Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect 2. Thomas Adcock – New York Law Journal 3. Ben Adler – Newsweek, POLITICO 4. Mike Allen – POLITICO 5. Eric Alterman – The Nation, Media Matters for America 6. Marc Ambinder – The Atlantic 7. Greg Anrig – The Century Foundation 8. Ryan Avent – Economist 9. Dean Baker – The American Prospect 10. Nick Baumann – Mother Jones 11. Josh Bearman – LA Weekly 12. Steven Benen – The Carpetbagger Report 13. Ari Berman – The Nation
14. Jared Bernstein – Economic Policy Institute 15. Michael Berube – Crooked Timer, Pennsylvania State University 16. Brian Beutler – The Media Consortium 17. Lindsay Beyerstein – Freelance journalist 18. Joel Bleifuss – In These Times 19. John Blevins – South Texas College of Law 20. Sam Boyd – The American Prospect 21. Ben Brandzel – MoveOn.org, John Edwards Campaign 22. Shannon Brownlee – Author, New America Foundation 23. Will Bunch – Philadelphia Daily News 24. Rich Byrne – Playwright 25. Jonathan Chait – The New Republic
26. Lakshmi Chaudry - In These Times 27. Isaac Chotiner – The New Republic 28. Ta-Nehisi Coates – The Atlantic 29. Michael Cohen – New America Foundation 30. Jonathan Cohn – The New Republic 31. Joe Conason – The New York Observer 32. Lark Corbeil – Public News Service
33. David Corn – Mother Jones 34. Daniel Davies – The Guardian 35. David Dayen – FireDogLake 36. Brad DeLong – The Economists’ Voice, University of California at Berkeley
37. Ryan Donmoyer – Bloomberg News 38. Adam Doster - In These Times39. Kevin Drum – Washington Monthly 40. Matt Duss – Center for American Progress 41. Gerald Dworkin – UC Davis 42. Eve Fairbanks – The New Republic 43. Henry Farrell - George Washington University
44. Tim Fernholz – American Prospect 45. Dan Froomkin – Huffington Post, Washington Post
46. Jason Furman – Brookings Institution 47. James Galbraith – University of Texas at Austin
48. Kathleen Geier – Talking Points Memo 49. Todd Gitlin – Columbia University 50. Ilan Goldenberg – National Security Network 51. Arthur Goldhammer – Harvard University
52. Dana Goldstein – The Daily Beast 53. Andrew Golis – Talking Points Memo 54. Jaana Goodrich – Blogger 55. Merrill Goozner – Chicago Tribune 56. David Greenberg – Slate
57. Robert Greenwald – Brave New Films 58. Chris Hayes – The Nation 59. Don Hazen – Alternet
60. Jeet Heer – Canadian Journolist 61. Jeff Hauser – Political Action Committee, Dennis Shulman Campaign 62. Michael Hirsh – Newsweek 63. James Johnson – University of Rochester
64. John Judis – The New Republic, The American Prospect 65. Foster Kamer – The Village Voice
66. Michael Kazin – Georgetown University 67. Ed Kilgore - Democratic Strategist 68. Richard Kim – The Nation 69. Charlie Kireker – Air America Media 70. Mark Kleiman – UCLA The Reality Based Community 71. Ezra Klein – Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect
72. Joe Klein – TIME 73. Robert Kuttner – American Prospect, Economic Policy Institute 74. Paul Krugman – The New York Times, Princeton University 75. Lisa Lerer - POLITICO 76. Daniel Levy – Century Foundation 77. Ralph Luker – Cliopatria 78. Annie Lowrey – Washington Independent 79. Robert Mackey - New York Times 80. Mike Madden – Salon 81. Maggie Mahar – The Century Foundation 82. Dylan Matthews – Harvard University 83. Alec McGillis – Washington Post 84. Scott McLemee - Inside Higher Ed 85. Sara Mead – New America Foundation 86. Ari Melber – The Nation 87. David Meyer – University of California at Irvine 88. Seth Michaels - MyDD.com 89. Luke Mitchell – Harper’s Magazine 90. Gautham Nagesh – The Hill, Daily Caller 91. Suzanne Nossel – Human Rights Watch 92. Michael O’Hare – University of California at Berkeley 

93. Josh Orton – MyDD.com, Air America Media 94. Rodger Payne – University of Louisville 95. Rick Perlstein – Author, Campaign for America’s Future 96. Nico Pitney – Huffington Post 97. Harold Pollack – University of Chicago 98. Katha Pollitt – The Nation 99. Ari Rabin-Havt – Media Matters 100. Joy-Ann Reid – South Florida Times 101. David Roberts – Grist 102. Lamar Robertson – Partnership for Public Service 103. Sara Robinson – Campaign For America’s Future 104. Alyssa Rosenberg – Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive 105. Alex Rossmiller - National Security Network 106. Michael Roston – Newsbroke 107. Laura Rozen - POLITICO, Mother Jones 108. Felix Salmon – Reuters 109. Greg Sargent – Washington Post 110. Thomas Schaller – Baltimore Sun 111. Noam Scheiber – The New Republic 112. Michael Scherer – TIME113. Mark Schmitt – American Prospect, The New America Foundation 114. Rinku Sen – ColorLines Magazine 115. Julie Bergman Sender – Balcony Films

116. Adam Serwer – American Prospect 117. Walter Shapiro – PoliticsDaily.com 118. Kate Sheppard – Mother Jones 119. Matthew Shugart – UC San Diego 120. Nate Silver – FiveThirtyEight.com 121. Jesse Singal - The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly 122. Ann-Marie Slaughter - Princeton University 123. Ben Smith – POLITICO 124. Sarah Spitz – KCRW
125. Adele Stan – The Media Consortium 126. Paul Starr – The Atlantic 127. Kate Steadman – Kaiser Health News 128. Jonathan Stein – Mother Jones 129. Sam Stein – Huffington Post
130. Matt Steinglass – Deutsche Presse-Agentur 131. James Surowiecki – The New Yorker 132. Jesse Taylor – Pandagon.net 133. Steven Teles – Yale University 134. Mark Thoma - The Economists’ View 135. Michael Tomasky – The Guardian 136. Jeffrey Toobin – CNN, The New Yorker 137. Rebecca Traister - Salon 138. Tracy Van Slyke – The Media Consortium 139. Paul Waldman - Author, American Prospect 140. Dave Weigel – Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent 141. Moira Whelan – National Security Network 142. Scott Winship - Pew Economic Mobility Project 143. J. Harry Wray – DePaul University 144. D. Brad Wright – University of NC at Chapel Hill 145. Kai Wright – The Root 146. Holly Yeager – Columbia Journalism Review 147. Rich Yeselson – Change to Win 148. Matthew Yglesias – Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly 149. Jonathan Zasloff - UCLA 150. Julian Zelizer – Princeton University 151. Avi Zenilman – POLITICO"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Extract From Milbank;

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.

Time For The Annual "Bottom 17 Worst Leftists Of The Year" Awards;From Schoenkopf To Moulitsas

Yes, after another year of hate, bile, lies, idiocy, distortion, filth, madness, and above all Palin Derangement Syndrome in extremis it's time to list those media personalities that stood out in all their horrific sewer drenched rags as the worst of the worst (the term "best" just doesn't fit in the category).

The websites and blogs and newspapers these characters inhabit had their own special award ceremony but some are so vile they stand out head and shoulders, or rather wattle and beak. 

To the list of defining characteristics above they have one further a special attitude of absolute elitism and condescension to the lower orders-especially the ones in flyover country at the very mention of whom their nostril reflexively turn upwards.

The only saving grace I can imagine with these people is that they have provided endless amusement as they twist and turn struggling to get away from the walloping that Donald Trump has delivered to them as their prognostication of his demise make them look utter fools.

A special Madame Tussaud's rogues gallery from 2015;

*Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos)
Rebecca Schoenkopf (Wonkette)
Dana Milbank (Washington Post)
Nate Silver (583.com)
Philip Bump (Washington Post)
Josh Marshall (TPM)
Kaili Joy Gray (Wonkette)
Evan Hurst (Wonkette)
Doug Mataconis (Outside The Beltway-a Libertarian)
Marty Kelly (Idiotic byline"Doktor Zoom" at Wonkette)
Chris Weigant (Huffington Post)
Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs)
Sarah Reese Jones (PoliticusUSA)
Jesse Griffen  ("Gryphen" at mad site Immoral Minority)
Joan Walsh (Salon)
Roger Simon (Politico)
Robin Abcarian (Los Angeles Times)


* I am indebted to Mr. Bump for his notice of a typo in the original edition of this article

Time For The Annual "Bottom 10 Worst Leftist Websites Of The Year" Awards

Yes, after another year of hate, bile, lies, idiocy, distortion, filth, madness, and above all Palin Derangement Syndrome in extremis it's time to list those websites/blogs that stood out in all their horrific sewer drenched rags as the worst of the worst (the term "best" just doesn't fit in the category).

So too is it not capable of listing them from one to ten as they are all "ten" (or "1000" if readers patience could be imposed upon to that degree). Here then are the worst of the worst for 2015;

Wonkette. The nadir of the nadir with the cast of alleged humans Evan Hurst "Doktor Zoom" (an utterly childish nomenclature as befits the site) Kaili Joy Gray and the ringmaster one Rebecca Schoenkopf who, "it is a legitimate question to raise" may have been passing off a child as her own in order to continue her admitted career as a grifter which included begging readers for booze, cigarettes and free accommodation and endless supply of money.

Jezebel-Gawker Both from the same Augean  stable of filth that even Hercules could not cleanse

Daily Beast

Huffington Post

Joe.My.God (Radical Gay site obsessed with Palin)

Towleroad (radical Gay site beloved by Memeorandum/obsessed with Palin)

Washington Post (Politics section with Philip Bump and Dana Milbank)

fivethirtyeight.com (Abode of yet another radical leftist Gay Nate Silver and badly named "Forecaster Enten"  Harry Enten) 

Daily Kos ( where the truly abhorrent Kos Moulitsas froths and gibbers and sends out idiotic tweets accusing the GOP of San Bernardino and Palin of Giffords).



I may have left some particularly vile sites out but one can breathe in the rotten stench of the above for so long without considering other fetid examples. But, readers are most welcome to make their own suggestions

If Sanders Went Independent And Carried Just Vermont That Could Give GOP The Win

The headlines scream;

"Chaos in the Democratic presidential primary

Clinton accuses Sanders of theft and the underdog alleges sabotage"

"Sanders sues Democratic Party"

Basically the situation is this;

 "A civil war erupted within the Democratic Party on Friday after news that Bernie Sanders' campaign took advantage of a technological glitch to access, search and save one of Hillary Clinton's most valuable campaign assets -- her 

voter files."

Tension rapidly escalated throughout the day as the Democratic National Committee cut off Sanders' access to his own voter files, effectively crippling his field operation, and the senator retaliated by suing the party and accusing its leaders of plotting to hand the presidential nomination to the Democratic frontrunner."

This is of course a godsend for the media who are struggling to write anything further about the GOP campaign. Their stories ran the gamut from"Trump is a joke" to "Trump won't get above 15%/20%/25%/30%" to "Carson/Fiorina/Rubio/Cruz surge". Now that Trump is at 39% and seems invulnerable to the best/worst efforts of the GOP Establishment and the media things were looking bleak, but the Sanders blow-up saved the day at least for a cycle or two.

But, and given the apparently irascible nature of Sanders if he feels badly done by, and even a dispassionate observer has to have some degree of empathy for him as far as his complaint of having the debates on a Saturday (especially just before Christmas) when nobody will be watching,

if he did decide to throw in the towel and go Independent, the outcome might be devastating for Hillary.

It hardly seems credible that an independent Sanders run could propel him into the White House on a surge of "progressive populism" but there is no doubt he could make a significant run. He has a mass of supporters including the "Kossite" progressives at Daily Kos who have exploded in fury at the treatment of "The Bern" with, at this writing 294 articles most of which expressed outrage.

Money would also appear to not be a concern as Sanders has gone the grassroots way, as befits a socialist, having raised at least $26 million in small donations.

It may be that the DNC's cunning plan of having a limited number of debates, and having them at the worst possible time, may backfire on them by driving a genuine outsider even further outside, in fact right outside the tent whose flaps he only recently came in by. It is worth noting that the GOP's cunning plan has also been upset by an outsider who, if he went Independent (which seems unlikely at this point) could also throw the election into chaos. It is clear that both Establishments completely misjudged the mood of an angry electorate on the left and the right.

In Electoral College terms, which is, in the end, all that matters, (who wins the popular vote is secondary-see Gore.Al) how might an Independent run by Sanders affect the outcome. The answer is, rather surprisingly, that if Sanders only won his home state of Vermont with its measly three electoral votes, that could, very reasonably, give the election to the GOP. Let's look at the map

This outcome is obviously very possible. The difference for the GOP from 2012 is that Florida, Virginia and Ohio are in their column. For all practical purposes if Florida goes Dem. then their is no need for any further discussion-that would be that. Even with Florida in the GOP column a path to an electoral college majority without Ohio seems dubious. Without Virginia the GOP would have to pick up Colorado/Iowa/Nevada a challenge but, just, doable. 

The map above is basically the G.W. Bush Map of 2004 with Bush having won the three "doable"states. The difference with this map is Sanders winning Vermont which would leave Hillary 1 Electoral College vote short of the 270 required.

Then the election would be thrown into the (presumable Republican state delegation majority-see map below) House which would choose between the top three candidates (I set out the constitutional procedure also below). At that point, a states one person delegation, i.e. the Congressman from Vermont, could have the final say on who would be president. If Sanders was so upset with the DNC that he instructed Vermont's one person caucus to cast their vote for the GOP (if the vote was 25 GOP to 24 Dem) the GOP candidate would win 26 to 24.

However, the most likely resolution would be a GOP caucus dominated House would choose the GOP presidential candidate on the first ballot.

If by swearing in day a tie had not been resolved the person the Senate had chosen as vice-president, would become president. What the balance of the Senate might be after November 2016 is still a mystery so how this scenario might play out is also a mystery. But, if the GOP held the Senate then it would be in their hands to chose the GOP's vice-presidential candidate who would become president.

"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-"

A quick glance at the map shows how this situation might be avoided altogether. If, as seems very likely, Sanders pulled a "Nader" and took enough votes from Clinton in New Hampshire (as happened to Gore in 2000) then the Republican would have 270 Electoral College votes and be elected. 

It would be beyond amusing if it turned out that, rather than the GOP with their Trump concerns, it eventuated that Sanders was the wild card that cost Hillary her second chance of being president-and it would be a self-inflicted wound.

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

The constitution is very clear (Article 12) on the matter. 

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.

UPDATE #3 Full Analysis/Graph's " Polls;Trump at 39% In Fox.Huge Leads in State Polls

UPDATE #3 Trump heads to new "ceiling of 40%

NEW; Huffington Post aggregate polls

Today's Polls;Trump blows everyone out of the water in state and nationwide polls.It's all over

New Hampshire +14 Florida +10!! Georgia +19 

USA +16!!!