To start this article, note that Gannett has the latest numbers on the popular vote winner (Clinton) and electoral college winner (Trump) as of noon today.
There’s a small but growing talk from credible sources that some Republican electors could refuse to vote for Donald Trump on Dec. 19, denying him the 270 needed for the presidency.
Instead a new Republican Congress could choose a more establishment person, who could wind up being Mitt Romney (if he wants it) or even Paul Ryan himself, if he steps down. Were this to happen, the GOP would try to distance itself from racism, alt-right ideology, and extremism with a more moderate choice. Ted Cruz (whose statements later in the primary campaign tended more toward libertarianism, with some welcome concern over Internet freedom and cybersecurity) could be a more desirable choice than most moderates believe. Or they could move toward Kasich or even Rubio.
Polico has a story here. A well-regarded UK site regards the Electoral College as an escape hatch to keep an unsuitable person out of the presidency, link.
The conservative Washington Times claims some electors are being chased.
The Atlantic considers such an event possible but dangerous, here. But a House election on Jan. 3 of a more “moderate” or “mainstream” GOP candidate should not be dangerous for the country.
Generally bigger sources pooh-pooh this idea, such as the Los Angeles Times.
I like the sign below just the way it is.
Note this Huffington Post argument by Paul Abrams, referring to Russian argument (although the referenced article is not all that convincing. Can the Electors violate state law and think about this on Dec. 19? Well, cogitate, yes (or "yeth").
Update: Dec. 15, 2016
Here is EJ Dionne's argument in the Washington Post on what the electors should do.
Vox has an explanatory article on the recount, Dec. 1.