Image 01 Image 03

Scarborough Warns: Republicans Will Be ‘Wiped Out’ in 2018 if They Go Too Far Right

Scarborough Warns: Republicans Will Be ‘Wiped Out’ in 2018 if They Go Too Far Right

But if free market reforms succeed as they should, why wouldn’t Republicans be rewarded?

“There, I said it. Mark it Down. Write it.” That was Joe Scarborough on today’s Morning Joe predicting that Republicans will be “wiped out” in the 2018 elections if they govern as far right as the Trump cabinet selections suggest.

Scarborough drew the analogy to the 1994, and more specifically to the 2010 midterm elections, when Dems suffered cataclysmic losses after an emboldened Obama admin governed from the left in its first two years.

Scarborough misses an important point, in the view of this Insurrectionist. Dems didn’t get punished in 2010 because of some abstract notion that they governed too far to the left. They lost because their liberal policies failed. The economy remained in the doldrums. And people could see that Obamacare was heading for failure.

But if Republicans push through reductions in taxation and regulation, and create an entrepreneur-friendly environment, why wouldn’t those policies succeed? What if by 2018 we are heading toward 4% GDP growth and seeing serious job creation? Why wouldn’t Republicans would be rewarded at the polls, not punished?

JOE SCARBOROUGH: I will tell you this. That Bob [Costa of the Washington Post] is right. Republicans need to look at what happened to Democrats in 1994 after they went too far left for two years. What happened to Democrats in 2010 when they went too far left. If they think they’re going to be able to go as far right as the cabinet selections suggest they are, they will be wiped out two years from now. Let me just say this. Before they’re even sworn in, because I was saying this about 2010. If Republicans go as far right as their cabinet choices suggest they’re going to go far right, they will get wiped out in 2018. There I said it. Mark it down. Write it, just like we said in June Trump could win.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


casualobserver | December 21, 2016 at 8:55 am

Of course the economy will be a big factor. But there are other cultural factors that will help a Trump administration to a degree as well. Taking action on immigration and law breaking sanctuaries is one, even if the Dems and the media (the same thing) work against him. And the more that the academe, entertainment industry, etc., continue their almost goofy SJW March the stronger Trump may become in the eyes of many Americans. The most recent silly promotion by MTV on whiteness proves it to me.

    MattMusson in reply to casualobserver. | December 21, 2016 at 10:21 am

    Don’t give the peons too much freedom.

    Don’t forget the rino’s that want President Trump to fail. They’re as bad as the liberals.

    Having watched the almost non stop whining and bs from the liberals since the election I hope President Trump tells them to bend over and grab their ankles because the Trump train is coming through.

Does that clown have a clue that the We the people have a contract with the federal gov through the Constitution and when one or both parties violate that contract that there is no justification to have big, bloated, unsustainable gov? These journalist jerks haven’t a clue what they are saying because they don’t understand that there is no mandate for tyranny except in a liberal mind.

Well, if Joe says so.

Joe says what his handlers tell him to say. Have any of these fools been fired for their brilliant election predictions and “reporting?” They do as they are told by the Democrat Party Central Committee.

I believe by 2020 GDP will be a rock solid 8%.

I am surrounded by millennials in their 20’s, four of whom are my own children, and they want nothing more than to roll up their sleeves and get to work pursuing their own happiness.

It is going to be fun to watch.

Jenny Hatch
Founding Mother of the Tea Party

Wrong. It is not an issue of going “too far right” it is an issue of doing what you said you would do: improve the economy, stay out of wars, and making America great again. It is both a subjective and objective thing. Most voters are not going to get bogged down on political theory. If people think they are moving in the right direction (things are getting better) the GOP will be rewarded. If not, GOP candidates will be punished.

I consider the economy to include getting control of illegal immigration, since illegals take jobs that citizens could take. Unemployment is a huge deal, especially in poorer communities (black and white).

JustShootMeNow | December 21, 2016 at 9:59 am

I doubt they will be wiped out. However they should be careful not to appear as “Same old shit as usual”. We won the election on “change”, the same reason Bernie was so popular. Stick to campaign promises, clean out some bullshit like the NEA, stay positive and I think Republicans will kick ass in 2018

Um, no. No they won’t. Might be better to take that crystal ball out of your arse before looking at it next time, Joe.

JoeThePimpernel | December 21, 2016 at 10:21 am

The [CTRL] [ALT] [LEFT] propaganda media still doesn’t get it; they are no longer in charge.

If T-rump proves himself another Obama, people will pour him out like piss out of a boot…

Gingrich told NPR’s “Morning Edition” that he was told Trump “now says [the phrase] was cute, but he doesn’t want to use it anymore.”

Gingrich, who has been a close adviser to Trump, said he likes “drain the swamp” because it “vividly illustrates the problem, because all people in this city who are the alligators are going to hate the swamp being drained.”

“But, you know, he is my leader and if he decides to drop the swamp and the alligator I will drop the swamp and the alligator,” he added.

So, that’s ONE T-rump trope that’s already hit its expiration date.

As noted here days ago…

    OMG…Trump doesn’t want to use a catch phrase anymore.

    Stop the world.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 22, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    Read the comments. Every one applies to Murky as well as Neutered Gingrich.


    Newt is now claiming that he was wrong (made a “booboo”) in saying that Trump was dropping “drain the swamp” (the phrase, not the goal).

    I don’t think that Trump did like that term, since he was on the receiving and buying/selling end of the swamp for decades, and I doubt that Newt was mistaken. He’s no dummy.

    What I think we’re missing is that Trump talks in sweeping hyperbole that reaches his base and that they understand as being indicative of intent, not of actual steps that will be taken.

    For example, when Trump talks about building his big beautiful wall, we hear that he’s going to build a giant physical wall. That’s not what he means nor is it what his supporters hear: they hear only that he will stop illegal immigration. Well, okay, some of his looniest supporters do believe he’s going to build a wall across water, over mountains, and all along private property, but they are delusional people that even Trump doesn’t take seriously.

    Generally speaking, the key to Trump is that he talks in analogy, metaphor, bumper sticker sayings . . . broad, sweeping rhetoric that paints a picture. It doesn’t detail how anything will be done, but it does signal the end goal.

    He shares what he wants (walls, extreme vetting, nuke buildup, and etc..), and these mean simple things that should have been done decades ago: stop illegal immigration, don’t take in dangerous or potentially-dangerous refugees from regions rife with terrorism, rebuild our military and stop downsizing in the ridiculous hope that Russia, China, NoKo will follow suit.

    I think, really, it goes back to taking him seriously vs. literally. Taking him literally but not seriously leads to only one conclusion: he’s a crazy person who will be impeached post haste. Taking him seriously but not literally means that he may actually get some of his agenda items done. Either way, he poses no threat at all and actually offers a lot of hope. If he’s impeached, we’ll have Mike Pence as president (something I suspect we can both live with), and if he’s not and gets some stuff done that has sorely needed doing for decades . . . well, yay!

Another in a failed history of predictions about Trump.

Trump voters don’t care about ideology, they want results. If the economy is improved and job formation is increasing, then Trump’s party will do fantastically well no matter what positions they’ve taken. And the flip side is that if the economy is doing badly and unemployment is increasing, they will be in big, big trouble.

The good thing is that I think Trump realizes that more than any of the Congress critters do. Lesson to Congress – do whatever you have to do to grow the economy, and you can do anything else you want.

Too far right? By what standard? The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?

The American right did not establish class diversity to reconstitute institutional racism and sexism. They did not excise Posterity from the Constitution and pull a quasi-religious/moral philosophy from the twilight zone to rationalize abortion of human life deemed unworthy of life. They did not give a charter to Planned Parenthood to channel Mengele and engage in clinical cannibalism. They did not promise redistributive change or progressive poverty. They are not engaged in immigration “reform”, or social “justice” adventurism in an anti-native push. They did not reset the cold war with sovereign nations.

The American right is pursuing revitalization, rehabilitation, and reconciliation.

Perhaps he’s thinking of the far-right-left nexus.

Two facts Joe is overlooking:

1) socialism NEVER works

2) free markets ALWAYS work

The part he has right is that it’s up to the R’s to decide what they want to do

The question begging to be asked is: When has Joe ever been right?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to BigDaveLA. | December 21, 2016 at 11:57 am

    When have any of them been right? We get Joe every day because the author has a connection there from a previous gig, not because Joe Scarborough has anything useful to say.

This election boiled down to a battle between two diametrically opposed economic philosophies; socialism and economic freedom. Nothing else.

In the last 20 years, the US has been steadily trudging down the road to socialism. the majority of the population has become almost evenly divided between those requiring some type of government subsidy to live and those who do not. As these government subsidies are largely directly tied to whether the person receiving these subsidies actively participates in the work force or not, the subsidized are essential forced out of the official work force. At the same time, the subsidies that they receive come from taxes paid by those in the work force. And, the electoral map clearly shows that the areas having the highest percentage of subsidy recipients, large metropolitan areas, voted for the political party which offered continuing and expanded subsidization, the Democrat Party.

It was all about economics.

What is now being called The Right, Conservatives, etc. is simply the portion of the population which wants to be allowed to advance economically, not to become a part of the stagnant, welfare class. The Trump supporters want to live in a dynamic society, where it is possible for anyone to become rich or to become President by virtual of hard work. The welfare class want the status quo maintained, so that their economic position will not require hard work to sustain. Then you have the elite classes. Their position is secure only as long as the status quo is maintained.

It is all about economics.

Social consciousness is directly tied to economics. Organizations support morally questionable practices for personal gain. Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry has gleaned hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars, over the course of its existence, much of it tax dollars, for the destruction of human fetuses. Racial, gender, sexual orientation and religious discrimination has been kept alive to support another multi-billion dollar business, the civil rights industry. Governments have grown enormously, over the last 50 years, based largely upon the need to redistribute wealth to support and enlarge the welfare class. And, these government jobs essential enlarge the welfare class as they are directly dependent upon tax dollars of the private work force to support them.

It is all about economics.

The people who manipulate this, the elites, are extremely short sighted. They promote policies which will benefit them in the short run, such as reducing manufacturing costs by exporting manufacturing jobs overseas or hiring undocumented aliens to avoid higher wages and increased employee taxes. What this ignores is their markets. The largest markets, for consumer related goods, are places such as Europe and the US, where the consumer makes the highest per capita income, while having a large enough population to support a significant market in such goods. And, all of this income is ultimately based upon the manufacturing industry. Remove that from a geographic area and the market in that area collapses as people have no disposable income. This kept the Soviet union from maintaining itself. It is what has reduced the European market share. It is what led to Braxit and now to the Trump revolution. The purchasing power of any specific market has to be maintained or that market will collapse.

It is all about economics. Social justice, the rule of law, fair play, equality all flow from economics. Trump offered an increase in economic benefits and Clinton promised to continue down the road to the stagnant cesspool of socialism. And the country chose Trump. Interestingly enough, it was the communist/socialist fringe which was Hillary Clinton’s biggest opponent.

Its all about the economy.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 21, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    A load or your typical bullshit.

    Brexit and T=rumpism are at cross purposes. Brexit is a free market impulse, a market oriented drive to allow trading as it was once conducted by the Brits.

    T-rumpism is the opposite. It is Collectivist, command control of the national economy, no different than Sanders proposed and the AFL-CIO has militated for for decades.

    Watch the Brexit movie. Find ONE thing they want that T-rump advocates. Just the last third of the movie tells the tale…

      Farage, the Brexit leader, and Trump have a very close relationship, which makes your analysis wrong, once again.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | December 21, 2016 at 1:39 pm

        No, Lyin’ Barry. You’re full of shit, again.

        Take on the FACTS, Butt-hurt. You know…reality…

          “No, Lyin’ Barry. You’re full of shit, again.”

          You’ve become a joke line. You have to use the “lie” meme because you have nothing else. It is evident to anyone paying any attention that Farage and Trump have met together with Farage supporting Trump.

          To suggest otherwise is either a true lie, or the version of non-reality swimming through your TDS addled mind.

          I’m going with TDS. It is a debilitating and blinding disease.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 21, 2016 at 2:42 pm

          Yes, you go with TDS like a smack addict goes for a fix.

          Nothing is more blinding and debilitating than refusing information.

          You haven’t watched the BREXIT movie, and you can’t deal with it.

          “You haven’t watched the BREXIT movie, and you can’t deal with it.”

          Just making stuff up as per your usual. I watched it a long time ago. No, I’m not going to spend an hour or so watching again. It does not invalidate what I said, nor make your TDS any less than what it is. You can, and do, spend all your time hating the man that gives us a chance of fighting back against the left. TDS.

          It remains to be seen how Trump will work out. So far, it looks good. I stand by my statement – “Trump will be the most effective conservative we’ve had in the last 50 years”.

          Your nevertrump blather is nothing more than BS.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 21, 2016 at 5:35 pm

          I never figured you’d watch the LAST THIRD of the movie.

          Your “mind” is closed. TDS.

          I do have hopes that others will watch it and know what a pitiful POS you and your other T-rumpian cultists are.


      You have it backwards. Brexit was intended to separate the UK from the EU to restore both political and economic liberty for the people of GB, so that GB was free to manage their economic affairs as it wishes. Right now, the British worker is suffering because of the economic restrictions placed upon it by the EU. And, the British consumer is being forced to accept products that they do not want, through EU regulation. Brexit is designed to allow the British to manage their own economy, as they see fit.

      The advertised Trump proposals would do the same thing. They would return manufacturing jobs to the US, especially in the area of consumer goods. They would reduce the undocumented labor force and return these jobs to US citizens. In other words, it will allow the citizens of the United States to regain control of their economy by reducing the vulnerability which reliance upon foreign manufacturing produces.

      As to Trumps proposals being Collectivism, this is false. What has happened is that Free Market philosophies have been tried, by the US for the last 20 years. And, they proved to be a failure. The reason is simple. Free market trading relies upon the economic status of the entire trading environment to be essential equal. In the US, the earning capabilities of the citizenry have always been relatively uniform. Geography plays a part in where specific businesses settle[ steel in areas whit iron and goal resources, water shipping along coastal areas and navigable rivers, manufacturing where power is plentiful and transport easy, agriculture where there is abundant open land and soil and water conducive to food production,etc]. But, the people in all of these areas are largely equivalent in terms of economic solvency. So, the manufacturing areas support the farming areas and vice versa and the transhipment areas serve both and are served by both. However, in the world today, manufacturers are moving their operations to second and third world countries where the labor costs are much lower. This reduces the purchasing potential of the workers in the consumer nations, while not raising the buying potential of the workers in the 2nd and 3rd world manufacturing countries to a level which is equal to the buying power of the consumer base that they are supplanting. And, as we have seen, countries such as the US and Europe have little that developing nations need or can afford. So, a certain amount of national economic protectionism is a necessity, if the global economy is going to survive. Otherwise you end up with producers which can not afford to buy what they are producing, which leads to lay-offs, economic stagnation and collapse.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 21, 2016 at 3:47 pm

        More consummate bullshit.

        You don’t know what you’re talking about, and have no problem lying about facts.

        Again, you haven’t watched the BREXIT movie, and cannot honestly deal with what it DOES say.

        The crap you state as axioms is amazing. Trading HAS to benefit the trading parties, or it doesn’t happen.

        The stupid of T-rumpians is gobsmacking. Second only to their slavishness.

          “Trading HAS to benefit the trading parties, or it doesn’t happen.”

          Which does not mean it benefits the country, or the majority of the working class therein.

          We do not and never have had free trade. A free trade agreement could written on a single sheet of paper. Trade agreements of hundreds and thousands of pages are managed trade deals and we suck at them.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 21, 2016 at 6:48 pm

          You are a living, breathing mass of economics stupid.

          “The working man” is one of the prime beneficiaries of trade…with many a working man/woman employed by the processes of trading.

          They also are able to source goods and…yes!…services at prices only available via trade.

          You’re also a walking, typing cesspool of stupid cliches, like ‘no free trade’.

          The last time we tried the wonder of the Great God Cheeto was called “The Great Depression”, mow-ron.

          The Reagan years were typified by open trading with the world.

          But you’ll see. I’ll point and laugh, like when you assured everyone that automation RAISED employment in the manufacturing sector!

          Good times… GOOOD times…!!!

If the wall is built, Obamacare actually repealed and replaced with a series of laws that are workable and affordable (which will spur economic growth) and we take the war to ISIS, most voters won’t care how far “right” Republucans go. In fact, building a wall, junking Obamacare and feeling safe from radical Islam sounds pretty mainstream to me and Republicans will be rewarded for this in 2018.

1. Farange is NOT “the” BREXIT leader. He’s a player, but you get a sense of how important from the movie.

2. Farange and Der Donald playing tongue hockey has no bearing on my analysis…even if it were true. I know that Farange has been here and is supportive of T-rump. Watch the flucking movie.

3. Hannan is MUCH more a leading light in BREXIT. Watch and learn what he says, TDS boi.

Funny how the legacy media never concern-trolls Democrats on stuff like this.

Just like Republicans got wiped out in Wisconsin after Governor Walker “went too far right” with his reforms.

Oh, wait, what?

Happily, progressives and whining leftists have already established exactly what is “too far right”: literal enslavement of minorities; persecution, detention, and torture of Muslims; an overt “war on women” that will take the form of forcing women from the workforce, possibly a ban on all women’s shoes; and daily, mandatory Nazi rallies in every town and city.

Since exactly none of that will happen, the impact on the 2018 midterms will, instead, be based on how President Trump performs in office. He may not only keep existing support but get still more support votes(i.e. in Congress) for not being the demonic monster the radical lunatics on the left promise him to be. The GOP Congress could end up with supermajorities in both houses . . . and in no small part because the seriously crazy rantings and predictions and warnings of the fringe left have ensured that Trump can’t possibly meet their “expectations.”

What is a “right” policy? How far is too far right? I expect that for at least the first year Trump will be undoing and fixing the damage of obama the oaf and traitor.