2016 Saw The End of "Punditry" As Anything But Blatant Propaganda

Apart from the election of Donald Trump as president 2016 brought another welcome benefit, the end of punditry and pundits as something of "value".

For most of America's history the press and more latterly television and the pundits therein (e.g. Cronkite/Huntley-Brinkley) held a high and privileged place in the culture. 

Who a newspaper endorsed for president used to be a highly coveted item in any campaign and a journal or magazine that had a respected pundit or pundits would carry enormous weight in respect of voters considerations if not actual choices.

By their actions in the 2016 campaigns the media with their blatant one-sided and grossly distorted bias. 

About two newspapers nationwide endorsed Trump for president, towards Clinton and against Trump gave up any pretensions to being in any way a focal point for genuine analysis. 

The entire media with its liberal bias is now simply a home for its audiences prejudices. 

Nobody could honestly advise that the various 'Posts' and 'Times' in Washington/New York and California are anything but propaganda pieces for the urban left. 

Similarity Fox TV, Breitbart and "A Point of View' are repositories for center-left discussion.

This is actually all for the good. The fact that any pretensions to evenhandedness are gone allows for any media site to be taken at face value as well as providing a comforting bubble for its audience. 

The same applies to "pundits" too. 

Any thundering volley from the likes of Josh Marshall or Nate Silver of any of the Washington Posts's stable e.g. Dana Milbank are now taken with a huge grain of salt or as an indication of what propaganda line the DNC wishes to promote at any one time.

The Election In Retrospect;State Polls Showed Obvious Trump Win

Having reviewed the election night broadcasts from the major networks it is clear the entire punditry on show were utterly befuddled by the result. "How did we not see this coming?" Nobody predicted this."

to state "nobody predicted this" is really just an extension of the blindness inherent in 'we did not see this coming' as a number of pundits, including in all modesty myself, and an academic who has always been right, saw a Trump win.

The stunned reaction included 'the polling industry is broken, they got it wrong." As the night started the consensus was "Trump has a very narrow path, he has to thread the needle whereas Clinton has multiple paths."

 It is this "consensus" based on "data and received wisdom" which, along with what must be willful blindness that was so wrong.

Once Trump had won Florida, North Carolina and Ohio the scales (and the countenances) started dropping from their collective eyes the tune changed to "this is a complete reversal of what everyone thought, it is Trump who now has multiple paths and Hillary whose path is narrowing."

Lets look at the reality in the polling and the actual results in the "battleground states".

The aggregate of polls in Florida gave Trump an 0.2 point lead with the final poll from Trafalgar group on 11/6 giving Trump a +4 lead. The final result was Trump +1.2. Clearly a Trump win was more than probable.

North Carolina; Final aggregation Trump +1.0 actual result Trump +3.7

Ohio; Final aggregation Trump +3.5  actual result +8.1

Iowa; Final aggregation Trump +3.0 actual result Trump +9.5

It is perfectly clear that if the punditry had dwelt on the final poll aggregates at the very least the comment could have been"if the polls are correct in these battleground states the Trump only needs to break through in one or two of Clinton's "rust belt blue wall to have a strong chance." 

Most certainly the polls were massively out in Wisconsin giving Clinton a 6.5 point lead and he ended up winning by 0.7 but in Pennsylvania Clinton's lead was only 1.7 points and the final Trafalgar poll had Trump at +1 and he won it by +0.7. In Michigan Clinton's final aggregate lead was 3.4 with Trafalgar  giving Trump a +1 lead and Trump won the state by 0.3

Again, anyone not blinded by either bias, group think and probably both in most cases could see that Trump was in the margin of error in Pennsylvania and Michigan and if he won, where he led in the final polls, Florida/North Carolina/Ohio and especially if he won the latter by a large margin, which he was obviously going to do as the early returns came in, he had every chance of winning the presidency.

The battleground state polls, in the main and where it counted were not wrong, neither were the national polls which gave Clinton a popular vote win. It was the punditry that was willfully blind that was wrong and they reaped their reward on election night

Gov.Palin In Gallup's Top 10 Most Admired Women In World For 8th Straight Year

Governor Palin holds no office, has no regular media platform and yet for the eight consecutive year is listed in Gallup's "Most Admired Women In The World" list.

This speaks volumes about the high regard she is held in for her honesty  ethics and dedication to the truth no matter the personal cost in possible political advancement.

"Americans named Hillary Clinton the Most Admired Woman for the 15th consecutive year and 21st time overall. Since her initial win in 1993 as first lady, Clinton has topped the list every year but 1995 and 1996 (when she finished behind Mother Teresa) and 2001 (behind Laura Bush). Eleanor Roosevelt has the second-most No. 1 finishes among women, at 13.

First lady Michelle Obama finished second on the Most Admired Woman list this year, tied with 2012 as her best finish. The remainder of the top 10 most admired women include German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former and current talk-show hosts Oprah Winfrey and Ellen DeGeneres, Queen Elizabeth of England, human rights activist Malala Yousafzai, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin."

All of this year's leading women have finished in the top 10 multiple times before, led by Queen Elizabeth's record 48. Winfrey's 29th top 10 finish this year moved her ahead of Jacqueline Kennedy for the third-most-frequent appearances behind Queen Elizabeth and Margaret Thatcher (34). Clinton's 25 top 10 finishes rank fifth-best all-time. Rice has finished in the top 10 a total of 16 times, while Obama and Palin each made their ninth appearances in the top 10 this year.

Clinton was the top choice among Democrats, with 26% naming her, followed by Michelle Obama at 18%. Republicans did not have a consensus choice -- 5% named Queen Elizabeth, 4% each named Clinton and DeGeneres, and 3% each named Rice and Palin.

Rice. Sarah Palin came closest to beating Clinton in 2009, but Clinton narrowly kept her title in the bag."

Obama Biden Sanders Twist The Knife Into Hillary As "Comey/Russia" Gets No Traction

Now that the initial shock of defeat is wearing off Dem's are playing the blame game. They've run the gamut of "Comey/Russians/Koch Bros. fixed machines/Assange/biased media (yes they actually think that)/suppressed turnout (racism) and etc.

A few Bernie Bros. ripped into the actual cause of the loss, Clinton and her campaign, but most of the media and the Dem establishment kept their distance from the obvious, until now.

Now that all the ridiculous  last gasp efforts to overthrow Trump's win via "recounts' and Electoral College subterfuge have failed, the main characters have surfaced to gently, politely, but clearly twist the knife into the politically dead body of their erstwhile "it's her time" leader.

Obama's "her flaws were wildly amplified" an admission that she actually had flaws, is deliciously vicious, as is the clear admission of "[she] too cautiously played it safe" and the obvious attack on her neglect of white working class voters.

Vice-President Biden echoes this by initially stating how he praised her

and then puts her loss in: "her lack of respect' for the same "left behind people"

Bernie Sanders, as is his style, held nothing back. " Clinton was wrong to lash out at Comey, that's a minor issue. She should have won by ten points." And of course he goes on to blame the loss on  her inability to connect with White working class voters.

Sections of the more blatantly left media, where there is no such thing as subtlety or politeness, are starting to hold nothing back-expect this to be amplifed widely as Trump's agenda starts to be implemented. One  almost feels sorry for Hillary (almost).


New York Times

Obama Says He Would Have Defeated Trump for a Third Term

Mr. Obama praised the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, saying that she performed well under difficult circumstances and that there “was a double standard with her.”

“For whatever reason, there’s been a longstanding difficulty in her relationship with the press that meant her flaws were wildly amplified,” he said.

But Mr. Obama also said she campaigned too cautiously.

“If you think you’re winning, then you have a tendency, just like in sports, maybe to play it safer,” Mr. Obama said.

“Look, the Affordable Care Act benefits a huge number of Trump voters,” Mr. Obama said. “There are a lot of folks in places like West Virginia or Kentucky who didn’t vote for Hillary, didn’t vote for me, but are being helped by this.”

The problem, Mr. Obama said, was that Democratic politicians were not communicating to these people “that we understand why they’re frustrated.”

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

Joe Biden: Democrats 'Paid Price' For Clinton's Failed Message;

Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that Democrats "paid the price" for Hillary Clinton not making the problems of struggling working-class voters a "central part" of her presidential campaign.

"I said at the convention, when I introduced Hillary and praised her, I said we don't show enough respect to that group that, in fact, has been left behind," he said. 
*******************************************************************

Clinton blames Comey's email probe for her defeat

Bernie Sanders on Monday refused to blame James Comey for Hillary Clinton’s stunning defeat — just moments after a top New York Democrat said the FBI director should be fired.

Sanders, who lost a hotly contested race for the Democratic nod, said Clinton was wrong to lash out at Comey, who dropped a bombshell 11 days before the election saying his probe of the former secretary of state’s email scandal might not be done.

“That’s a minor look [issue],” Sanders said on CBS, insisting Clinton didn’t lose because of Comey’s revelation.

“It’s not a question of what happens in the last week. The question is that she should have won this election by 10 percentage points.”e.

Sanders downplayed Comey’s impact and instead pinned Clinton’s loss on the Democratic Party’s failure to connect with white working-class, non-college-educated voters.

“I will tell you I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite,” said Sanders, the Brooklyn-raised son of Polish immigrants.

“I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people from where I came from.”

When host Charlie Rose asked Sanders if he would have beaten Trump, the Vermont senator declined to play Monday morning quarterback.

“Hindsight is great, Charlie. I don’t know the answer to that — maybe, maybe not,” Sanders said. “But this is what I do know: I know that the Democratic Party has got to stand with the working people of this country — feel their pain and take on the billionaire class, take on Wall Street, take on the drug companies.”
****************************************************************
And the media turns on her

Clinton Political Malpractice Lost—Sanders Campaign for Change Would Have Won

She ran a lousy campaign under rotten advice from inept consultants, while he embodied authenticity

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

Even the  Washington Post now sees the light

"- Donald Trump's stunning victory is less surprising when we remember a simple fact:Hillary Clinton is a deeply unpopular politician"

Would President Obama have Won A "Third Term"? Absolutely Not

"Obama Says He Would Have Defeated Trump for a Third Term"

From The New York Times;

President Obama expressed confidence that, if he had run for a third term, he would have defeated Donald J. Trump, according to an interview released Monday with David Axelrod, his friend and former adviser.

“I’m confident that if I — if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it,” Mr. Obama said on Mr. Axelrod’s podcast, “The Axe Files,” referring to his message of inclusion and helping middle-class Americans.

“I know that in conversations that I’ve had with people around the country, even some people who disagreed with me, they would say the vision, the direction that you point towards is the right one,” he said.

Several hours after the interview was posted, Mr. Trump responded on Twitter. “President Obama said that he thinks he would have won against me,” Mr. Trump said. “He should say that but I say NO WAY! — jobs leaving, ISIS, OCare, etc.”

If in President Obama's fantasy the 22nd amendment to the Constitution had not been ratified in 1951 and he could have run for a third term This is what an Obama Vs Trump Electoral College map would have looked like;

Trump won Michigan by 0.22 and 10,077 votes. It is more than reasonable to surmise that President Obama would have easily gained more than eleven thousand votes over Clinton's total. 

The simple fact is that Michiganders just didn't like Hillary as was shown in the Democratic primary where she lose an "unloseable" battle with Bernie Sanders in the state.

Similarly in Pennsylvania won by Trump by only 0.72 points, 44,292 votes. 

Although the Democratic vote was massive in Philadelphia and probably maxed out, it is reasonable to have expected that Obama would have picked up enough votes in the suburbs and even in the rural areas to have taken what is normally a safe state for the Dem's.

But Wisconsin was such a massive win for Trump that it is hard to envisage even Obama could have recovered the situation. 

It's not the Republican vote that is at issue, Trump only won by 0.76 points, 22,748 votes.

Clinton received 1,382,536 (46.55%) to Trump's 1,405,284 (47.22%) 

In 2012 Obama received  1,620,985 (52.83%) to Romney's 1,407,966 (45.89%).

While Trump received slightly less, about 2,000, votes than Romney

Clinton received a massive 238,449 less votes than Obama a huge 6.28 point decline 

The simple, unmistakable facts are that Wisconsin wanted change. 

As obviously disenchanted with both candidates as the turnout was lower than 2012, the concept that the state would have voted for the person, Obama, whose administration was clearly seen as being responsible for their disenchantment with the status quo beggars belief.

As third term candidate President Obama would not even have had Clinton's (somewhat faded) "fresh face" and his campaign would have been entirely one of "more of the same' when the voters, at least in the rust belt states wanted exactly the opposite.

For President Obama running on his economic record to have won
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, especially when a "third term" i.e. a governing party winning three presidential  elections in a row is extremely rare, is a fantasy and, frankly, an insult to Hillary Clinton which speaks volumes about the state of the Democratic Party and President Obama.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Very best wishes to all of goodwill for a wonderful Christmas.

In Christ our Lord (the reason for the season)

Michael Joseph

Ivanka's Harassment;Privileged Leftist Gay White's The Untouchable Elite

As the world knows Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka was harassed on a coach flight by a Gay fellow passengers who deliberately set out to instigate trouble.

All the details are HERE

Of course voices on the left are attacking Ivanka! "Why did she fly coach?" "She's a cheap Jew"
"It's a set-up photo op by Trump" and other idiocy. But in the real world there are a number of disturbing themes;

More dangerous than the idiots who Tweet "photo op' are the radical leftist voices that are applauding the harassment of Ivanka as a good instance of the left 'fighting back, throwing off the shackles of the 'we go high' failed campaign and "taking it to the Republicans." This is a theme running through the comment section at Jezebel.

The leftist Gay community is being exposed as containing elements of being an elite privileged sect that appears to see it has total license to harass from within the safety of being able to scream they are picked on for being Gay  if their actions are criticized.

We've seen this before;

"BRISTOL PALIN VICTORIOUS in Bar Heckler Lawsuit 
During the confrontation, Hanks called Bristol's mom Sarah "evil" and a "whore"

It's noticeable that Wonkette's resident gay Affairs correspondence Evan Hurst, a regular attacker of Sarah Palin (note these leftist Gay attacks are on women) has not weighed in on the Ivanka harassment which lends itself to approval from silence.


This group contains the epitome of privilege, mostly White, wealthy, in positions of power and influence in academia, the media and Hollywood. They are the new bully boys but in their arrogance have not taken note of the massive swing to conservatism the elections over the last two years have brought. neither do they understand their in your face rudeness will play out completely to the detriment of their cause and positions. This person gets it;

Hutch ‏@LawlessPirate  33 minutes ago

The #LGBT left is an embarrassment to normal gays like myself & others. I hope the gay activist that harassed Ivanka Trump is charged.

There has never been a high profile case of a conservative Gay behaving in the manner that the radical leftists have which fits the profile of conservatives across all ethnicity, and affiliations.

Big Mistake Not To Include Palin In Cabinet As She'd Be "Rogue" Voice Of Loyal Opposition

Governor Palin penned a vociferous attack on both the Obama administration and "capitulating Republicans" 

"Sarah Palin: Russia Wins While America Sits On It’s Ass (pardon my Великорусский язык)"

The issue in her article was;

Russia just built and employed icebreakers to control Northern passageways while busily flagging life-sustaining resource-rich underseas acreage, with zero pushback from the U.S

In laymen’s terms, The Great Bear seized on America’s weak “uni-party” that controls our government, and watched our politicians go along to get along with Obama’s agenda built on disdain for an “all of the above” energy plan, a nonchalant attitude about bankrupting our government, and overall ignorance about purpose of national borders."

The wider point is that, once again and always, Governor Palin illustrates her independence, morality and principles above all else. 

At a time when surely any other prospective cabinet appointee would be either politically quiet, circumspect or frankly, lapdog sucking up Palin "goes rogue" and shows that she can not be bought or silenced. 

Nothing is more certain that Trump will have a political honeymoon period, not with the media of course but with the wider public. 

Even before he is taking office his "favorabilty" rating is rising and once he has settled into office and a degree of the campaign rancor has eased it would be expected he will be, initially, popular.

But unless the previous history of presidencies is yet another thing that Trump defies he will eventually find disfavor as some policy or other or event causes controversy. 

The media and Democratic party will of course lead the charge but their attacks can be beaten off as obviously partisan but remonstrations from Palin are not so easily disregarded given her reputation for ethics, principles and truth regardless of personal opportunities or favor.

If Palin were part of the administration this possible avenue of opposition would be closed to a large degree. 

That is not to say that Palin could be "muzzled" in any way but simply her sense of loyalty to the president and, if she had the VA position, her desire to stay in that role to assist with all her ability those who are in dire need of good governance.

Of course should there be an issue or event that was so calamitous to the well being of America that even the considerations of loyalty to president and charges even a cabinet role would not hold Palin back from "loyal opposition" I would venture with complete confidence.

I would also venture that not including Palin in a major cabinet role would be the first, and with possibly long term effect up to 2020, that the Trump administration could make.

McMullin Cost Trump Minnesota; A Good Omen for GOP 2020

Reviewing the 2016 presidential election I was surprised to see that the tool of the "Never Trump" Bill Kristol faction, Evan McMullin, actually cost Donald Trump Minnesota of all places.

There had been some conjecture that McMullin, a Mormon, might either steal the state of Utah from Trump of take away so many of Trump's votes in the state he would hand it to Hillary Clinton.

In the end the schemes of McMullin, Kristol and Clinton came to nought as Trump got more than double McMullin's total and almost more votes (45.54%) in Utah than Clinton/McMullin did combined.

Trump's smashing of the "Blue Wall" on election night ran through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. 

This mighty tide (although he won WI/PA/MI by a combined figure of under 100,000 votes his overcoming of the 2012 Dem majorities in these states was remarkable) ebbed in Minnesota.

Fortunately though Trump's winning of these five states ensured his election, which it would have done, remarkably, even without his winning Florida.

A closer look at the Minnesota result bodes extremely well for the Republicans in the 2020 presidential election as the basis for an extension of the "rust belt" strategy into that state is clear.

Trump lost by only 1.52 points and only 44,765 votes. McMullin received 53,076. Even allowing for 8,000 to have not voted if McMullin had not run the combined Trump/McMullin vote (46.72%) would have seen Trump win in a squeaker-but it's Minnesota which even withstood the 49 state Reagan landslide of 1984.

Would the majority of McMullin votes have gone for Trump? Surely McMullin's Mormonism wasn't a factor, but if not, what was? 

McMullin was endorsed and stood for the Independence Party a descendant of Jesse Ventura's erstwhile Reform Party so there was some base and history to build on for him which explains his unusually large vote there. 

Would, in the absence of McMullin, the libertarian element have voted for Hillary, the seeming bleeding of Trump's support to the actual Libertarian Gary Johnson indicates not.

If this opportunity to pick up the McMullin vote in 2020 comes to fruition it has meaning beyond expanding the Republican inroads into the Democratic north. 

If the trend in Arizona wit hits substantial and growing Hispanic population is to the Democratic party the loss of its 11 Electoral College votes would be countered by the ten Electoral votes of Minnesota going into the GOP's columns.

NEXT TRY! Overthrow Trump's Win At Congressional Electoral Vote Count 1/6/17

UPDATE 1/6/17;

The diehards (Video) actually attempted two attacks on Donald Trump being confirmed as president but to no avail;

US Electoral College Vote Confirms Trump

Congress certified Donald Trump's presidential victory on Friday over the objections of a handful of House Democrats, with Vice-President Joe Biden pronouncing, "It is over."

House Democrats objected to the votes from at least 10 states, raising issues of voter suppression as well as American intelligence showing that Russia tried to sway the election in favour of Trump. In each case, their objections were denied because they didn't have the support of any senators.

All 538 electors met in their respective state capitals in December to cast their votes. Friday's vote count made it official. Biden presided over the count in his role as president of the Senate.

Trump finished with 304 electoral votes and Democrat Hillary Clinton got 227. There were seven protest votes for other candidates. It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency.

As expected, Mike Pence was elected vice-president.

Trump and Pence are to be sworn in on Jan. 20.

'There can be no debate'

As the votes were announced for state after state, Democratic members of the House stood up to object. But in each case, no Democratic senator would join them, and Biden cut them off.

"There can be no debate," Biden said repeatedly.

Under federal law, if at least one senator and one House member object to the vote from any state, the House and Senate will meet separately to debate the merits of the objection.

Toward the end of the count, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., pleaded for a senator to join her in objecting.

"Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?" Waters said to boos from Republicans. None did.

Several protesters were ejected from the public gallery as the vote count concluded.

1. "House Democrats are weighing a formal challenge to Donald Trump’s election on Friday"

Several House Democrats are weighing a formal challenge to Donald Trump’s election on Friday, when Congress meets in joint session to certify Trump’s Electoral College victory.

Reps. Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, Bobby Scott of Virginia, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan and Jamie Raskin of Maryland are among a group of Democrats eyeing challenges.

Members have the right to lodge those protests when Congress officially counts the electoral votes on Friday. But for the protests to have any effect on the proceedings, they’ll need to secure the backing of at least one senator, and it’s unclear whether any Senate Democrats are weighing a similar challenge.

2. "At least 50 Trump electors ineligible in Electoral Vote count tomorrow"

More than 50 Electoral College members who voted for Donald Trump were ineligible to serve as presidential electors because they did not live in the congressional districts they represented or held elective office in states legally barring dual officeholders.

That stunning finding is among the conclusions of an extensive 1,000-plus page legal briefing prepared by a bipartisan nationwide legal team for members of Congress who are being urged to object to certifying the 2016 Electoral College results on Friday.

“Trump’s ascension to the presidency is completely illegitimate,” said Ryan Clayton of Americans Take Action, who is promoting the effort. “It’s not just Russians hacking our democracy. It’s not just voter suppression at unprecedented levels. It is also [that] there are Republicans illegally casting ballots in the Electoral College, and in a sufficient number that the results of the Electoral College proceedings are illegitimate as well.”

As per the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution the President-Elect is not formally confirmed in that role until a Joint Session of Congress meets as set out below.

The butt hurt leftist diehards have tried and failed with a number of hopeless ruses to stop Trump's election so far, all of which have just made them look churlish and foolish with their "we are doing this to save America" nonsense, a pathetic cover for their desire to overturn the election for their obvious and blatantly partisan reasons.

1. Recounts in three key states that Trump won with no call for recounts in states that Clinton won closely. This was initiated by the Greens Jill Stein but supported by the DNC. 

A complete failure in the courts in two states and in the one case where a recount took place Trump increased  his election night totals. This nonsense was funded by desperate Dem's.

2. Pressure, often of a violent nature, put on Electors to change their support for Trump to either get Trump below 270 Electoral votes, thus throwing the election into the House or calling for "caring for America Republicans to join with Dem Electors to put in a Republican "acceptable to both party's." This worked out so terribly for the conspirators that instead of Trump losing a large number of Electoral votes it was Hillary who lost  to the Sanders faction.

In the end eight "Faithless Electors" in Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, Colorado and Washington either tried to or did (5) vote for someone else rather than Clinton. Only two in Texas did not vote for Trump.

But they are surely not done yet! Next up the plan would be to have two members of Congress, from their point of view ideally one Dem and one "Never Trump" Republican (a congressman and a senator as the law prescribes) to formally object to the Electoral College votes at the January 6th joint session of Congress.

If, as would seem ridiculous, Vice-President Biden allows such an objection or objections to go to debate the uproar from the public would be massive and the end result would be catastrophic both for the Democratic Party and the country. 

The grounds for "objections" are perfectly obvious.

1. Clinton had two point eight million more votes than trump so the American people really wanted her to be president

2. And of course "The Russian interfered in the election and if the had not Hillary would have won so she is the rightful president"

“Frankly, at this point, I'm wondering if Putin helped Trump win the Republican primary," Chris Suprun, a Texas elector who's been an outspoken critic, said before the voting began. In Rhode Island, electors passed a motion calling for an independent, bipartisan investigation into Russian intervention in the election as Congress debates whether the matter should be reviewed by Republican-led committees or as an independent probe.

The Republicans have a majority in both the House and Senate so any ensuing "debate" would be short lived and would quickly end yet another sad and pathetic last ditch scheme. 

However; (Throwing out the Texas slate would put Trump below 270)
"The next step in the process comes on January 6, when the members of Congress gather to certify the tally (304 to 227, thanks to the seven faithless electors). It is possible for lawmakers to object to a single elector, or to an entire state's electoral slate, if one representative and one senator sign a letter to that effect. So, that is likely to be the next straw that the anti-Trump forces grasp at. However, both the House and the Senate (which are, remember, controlled by the GOP) would have to vote to throw the electoral vote(s) out. One can see how Republican leadership would be tempted, since they would be choosing from the top three finishers, which would mean that they could replace Donald Trump with newly-anointed third-place finisher Colin Powell. "

But, it wouldn't be the last ditch-there is yet one more after this sad spectacle (if it actually takes place) but, more on that after January 6th!

NB;They've done it before;

"Progressive Democrats lead historic voting rights protest as Congress ratifies flawed 2004 Electoral College tally
A handful of progressive Democrats in the House and a lone Senator, Barbara Boxer of California, forced the Republican-dominated Congress to hear two hours of protest Thursday about how the 2004 presidential vote was replete with efforts to disenfranchise Democratic voters and suppress turnout in a torrent of tactics reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. 

“We have spent our lives fighting for things we believe in – always fighting to make our nation better,” Boxer told the joint session. “We have fought for social justice. We have fought for economic justice. We have fought for environmental justice. We have fought for criminal justice. Now we must add a new fight – the fight for electoral justice.” 

By invoking a law used twice since 1877, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, D-OH, and Sen. Boxer, stopped Congress’ ratification of the 2004 Electoral College vote by challenging the Ohio results. That forced Vice President Dick Cheney, the presiding officer, to order each chamber to debate the merits of the Ohio vote for two hours. A week earlier, Cheney refused to accept a notice of deposition in a lawsuit challenging the results of 2004 Ohio presidential vote. "

Counting electoral votes 

The Twelfth Amendment mandates that the Congress assemble in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election. The session is ordinarily required to take place on January 6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors Since the Twentieth Amendment, the newly elected Congress declares the winner of the election. In elections before 1936, the outgoing Congress counted the electoral votes.

The meeting is held at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.^[3] The sitting Vice President is expected to preside, but in several cases the President pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings instead. The Vice President and the Speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the Vice President in the seat of the Speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in the two mahogany boxes containing each state's certified vote and place them on tables in front of the Senators and Representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote (normally one member of each political party). Relevant portions of the Certificate of Vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order. Members of Congress can object to any state's vote count, provided that the objection is supported by at least one member of each house of Congress. A successful objection will be followed by debate; however, objections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised, although it did occur during the vote count in 2001 after the close 2000 presidential election between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore. Vice President Gore, who as Vice President was required to preside over his own Electoral College defeat (by five electoral votes), denied the objections, all of which were raised only by several House members and would have favored his candidacy, after no Senators would agree to jointly object. If there are no objections or all objections are overruled, the presiding officer declares the result of the vote and states who is elected President and Vice President. The Senators then depart from the House Chamber.