PA-Sen: Barletta is running

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Well, I  am very much open to tweaking legislation to address conservative concerns and get it passed, I do agree that going entirely in the middle often results in poor legislation that creates the worst of both worlds.

And IMHO - vice versa: if done correctly it can be "the best of both worlds". And single-payer would be defeated in 2009: even ObamaCare was passed by 3-4 vote margin with 30+ Democrats(approximately) voting even against it.... You never had votes for single-payer. And unlikely to have anytime soon...

I think this really sums up the nature of our disagreement: I think leftists can win elections because, if they take power, I think their policy ideas are popular, workable and would benefit people's lives. In my view, the durability of the New Deal coalition is a testament to this. I see political moderates as usual leaches on my party (I guess it is?) because they don't offer solutions to any social or economic problems that America faces so much as they offer useless grandstanding.

Here's a list of issues that "moderates" have not addressed and will not address:
-wage stagnation among the working and middle classes
-economic dislocation in regions affected by trade
-the market failure of our healthcare system (including but not limited to: market power of every layer of the healthcare sector, lack of agency of patients, issues relating to "unnecessary" treatment, widespread fraud etc.)
-the fact that the labor force participation rate of women has stagnated whereas it has risen elsewhere
-the fact that retirement security is nonexistent for most of the soon to retire
-the issue of mass incarceration and the manner in which it has destroyed communities
-the failure to address housing policy problems
-the issues related to consumer indebtedness in American society and how it affects individual decision-making and burdens society.

If you believe these problems exist, and they clearly do, no policy proposals have been offered by the politicians that you're prone to describe as "moderates" because, part and parcel of political centrism in America is a lack of willingness to accept the fact that there are tremendous problems facing American society, which is why Trump and Sanders really define the zeitgeist. The center hasn't held because the center didn't address these issues. The political establishment didn't address these issues.

As a note, I'm not only responding to you so much as I'm responding to a forum in which many new users apparently don't understand politics. It's time to ditch the idea that centrism colored by neo-liberal or intense pork-barrel localism will be particularly successful going forward. Maybe the latter will continue to have appeal, maybe more so, but it's more likely that people will gravitate towards sweeping agendas of change rather than esteemed centrists.

[Torie]

Here's my definition of a "moderate," perhaps an idiosyncratic one. A moderate is one who tries to make decisions based on data, addressing real problems that are not good for the polity, and goes where the data leads one, without ideological blinders. I can't emphasize what I underlined enough. Sometimes what is prudent, is more in tune with the Left's preferences, and sometimes it is more in tune with what the Right believes, and sometimes leads one in a third direction. It just depends. Also important is keeping in mind the limitations of data (it can be inaccurate, or is based on false assumptions as to causation or otherwise), and that all data needs to undergo a sensitivity analysis.

[RI]

Here's my definition of a "moderate," perhaps an idiosyncratic one. A moderate is one who tries to make decisions based on data, addressing real problems that are not good for the polity, and goes where the data leads one, without ideological blinders. I can't emphasize what I underlined enough. Sometimes what is prudent, is more in tune with the Left's preferences, and sometimes it is more in tune with what the Right believes, and sometimes leads one in a third direction. It just depends. Also important is keeping in mind the limitations of data (it can be inaccurate, or is based on false assumptions as to causation or otherwise), and that all data needs to undergo a sensitivity analysis.

Sounds more like a technocrat than a moderate, though technocrats are generally ideologically predisposed, even when they try not to be.

[smoltchanov]

Well, I  am very much open to tweaking legislation to address conservative concerns and get it passed, I do agree that going entirely in the middle often results in poor legislation that creates the worst of both worlds.

And IMHO - vice versa: if done correctly it can be "the best of both worlds". And single-payer would be defeated in 2009: even ObamaCare was passed by 3-4 vote margin with 30+ Democrats(approximately) voting even against it.... You never had votes for single-payer. And unlikely to have anytime soon...

Obamacare sux.. and single payer would have been more popular, so yes we would have had the votes!!!

Never. It was anathema even to more conservative Democrats (of which there was a lots then), so - no

[smoltchanov]

^We will never agree. So it will be better if we both stick to our views and end this (essentially - useless) "discussion". You can be sure that as Russian by origin i hate revolutions of all sorts (there were more then enough of them in Russia, even if we forget about other countres, and i know first hand where they lead to). And those Russians, who don't like "permanent revolution", are, essentially, counterrevolutionaries))). Me - too)))

Political revolution ought not be equated with revolutions of the violent sort but, fine, we disagree; I think you should stick to, uh, politics elsewhere because you clearly don't understand America very well even if you can identify congressional districts on a map or whatever.

Excuse me, but a lot of people will say that i understand American politics better then you are. So i will ignore your "advice". You are not a person to judgee my knowledge or lack of it, and your opinion is of no importance to me.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

^We will never agree. So it will be better if we both stick to our views and end this (essentially - useless) "discussion". You can be sure that as Russian by origin i hate revolutions of all sorts (there were more then enough of them in Russia, even if we forget about other countres, and i know first hand where they lead to). And those Russians, who don't like "permanent revolution", are, essentially, counterrevolutionaries))). Me - too)))

Political revolution ought not be equated with revolutions of the violent sort but, fine, we disagree; I think you should stick to, uh, politics elsewhere because you clearly don't understand America very well even if you can identify congressional districts on a map or whatever.

Excuse me *snip*

You're excused.  Now please take your radical Moderate Hero hackery elsewhere, thanks.

[smoltchanov]

^We will never agree. So it will be better if we both stick to our views and end this (essentially - useless) "discussion". You can be sure that as Russian by origin i hate revolutions of all sorts (there were more then enough of them in Russia, even if we forget about other countres, and i know first hand where they lead to). And those Russians, who don't like "permanent revolution", are, essentially, counterrevolutionaries))). Me - too)))

Political revolution ought not be equated with revolutions of the violent sort but, fine, we disagree; I think you should stick to, uh, politics elsewhere because you clearly don't understand America very well even if you can identify congressional districts on a map or whatever.

Excuse me *snip*

You're excused.  Now please take your radical Moderate Hero hackery elsewhere, thanks.

I will take them where I (not YOU) want. Thanks. "Moderate heroes" are in no sense worse then "progressive" or "conservative" one, so YOU can follow your own advice if you wish.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

^We will never agree. So it will be better if we both stick to our views and end this (essentially - useless) "discussion". You can be sure that as Russian by origin i hate revolutions of all sorts (there were more then enough of them in Russia, even if we forget about other countres, and i know first hand where they lead to). And those Russians, who don't like "permanent revolution", are, essentially, counterrevolutionaries))). Me - too)))

Political revolution ought not be equated with revolutions of the violent sort but, fine, we disagree; I think you should stick to, uh, politics elsewhere because you clearly don't understand America very well even if you can identify congressional districts on a map or whatever.

Excuse me *snip*

You're excused.  Now please take your radical Moderate Hero hackery elsewhere, thanks.

I will take them where I (not YOU) want. Thanks.

Sick burn

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Here's my definition of a "moderate," perhaps an idiosyncratic one. A moderate is one who tries to make decisions based on data, addressing real problems that are not good for the polity, and goes where the data leads one, without ideological blinders. I can't emphasize what I underlined enough. Sometimes what is prudent, is more in tune with the Left's preferences, and sometimes it is more in tune with what the Right believes, and sometimes leads one in a third direction. It just depends. Also important is keeping in mind the limitations of data (it can be inaccurate, or is based on false assumptions as to causation or otherwise), and that all data needs to undergo a sensitivity analysis.

Ideological blinders are inherent to humanity, and data is easily manipulated or misinterpreted. Especially if you're a human (or a human designed logic system) and thus have ideological blinders.

I will take them where I (not YOU) want. Thanks. "Moderate heroes" are in no sense worse then "progressive" or "conservative" one, so YOU can follow your own advice if you wish.

Great, but another word of advice: you seem to take your moderate hero hackery places where it looks really really bad, so you might want to listen to someone else.   

[smoltchanov]

Great, but another word of advice: you seem to take your moderate hero hackery places where it looks really really bad, so you might want to listen to someone else.  

Looks bad to whom? You? May be. But - why do you think it's so important to me? I listen to persons i respect. There are some of them even on this forum. But why must i listen to EVERYONE who imagines himself a guru? And even if i listen - that doesn't mean i will neccessary agree. I don't ask others to agree with me, why not vice versa?

[smoltchanov]

Atlas was a multiparty-multiview site from the beginning. It's not DKE, where you MUST be a Democrat (and only a progressive one) to have full rights, otherwise your possibilities are very limited. It's not RRH, which is, essentially a mirror image of DKE (Republican). On Atlas (as in life) people of all political views (from ExtremeRepublican to, practically, communists) do "coexist". It's a sort of Hyde Park in some aspects. There can't be a strong moderation in such case, at least - moderation by ideological principle. It would be simple discrimination. And for "purists" there are lot of sites like above mentioned DKE and RRH to express himself in very favorable environment. BTW - i would be grateful if someone could suggest a site (but no less interesting then DKE/RRH) which is oriented on moderates - i tried to find something, but in vain (only much less interesting sites). Would such site exist - i swear i would spend more time there and less - here (to the delight of some))))

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

But it's inane to fetishise moderation just because they are moderate. That's what I get from your posts - a lack od political understanding beyond "well the middle is the best, because it is the middle". That's the sort of mentality that props up vast, corrupt parties that merely define themselves as nonidealogical people of the middle.

[smoltchanov]

But it's inane to fetishise moderation just because they are moderate. That's what I get from your posts - a lack od political understanding beyond "well the middle is the best, because it is the middle". That's the sort of mentality that props up vast, corrupt parties that merely define themselves as nonidealogical people of the middle.

No fetishisation. But generally i really prefer flexible moderates to rigid extremists of any sort. Because, IMHO, a flexibility is a plus in politics, compromise is frequently neccessary (and i prefer small steps to lack of any movement), and so on. So, in short, i am a natural moderate. As naturally i generally prefer a politicians of the same sort. In addition - present polarisation where "middle is almost empty" (look at present House - less then 10% are there, other are either liberals (yes, including moderate liberals, but - nevertheless) or conservatives (frequently - very rigid ones)) seems simply dangerous to me: it encourages a behavoir of " i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool" type, where everything is determined by brute force. In Russian history there were "bolsheviks vs. mensheviks" struggles, and "red" vs "white", which demonstated itself during Russian civil war of 1917-1920 with rivers of blood on both sides and where the only "reasonable" behavoir was "to fight an enemy until it's full extermination". An extreme polarisation may, in time, to lead to the same results...

[jamestroll]

As a moderate, I agree that it is best to take a side but not be so inflexible that you would never ever compromise or considering someone of your opposing party irrespective of circumstances.

Moderation for the sake of it, obviously does not work and going exactly in the middle created horrid results often, like ObamaCare. Like I said, we should have pushed through a single payer system in 2009 and 2010, even if we had to make some tweaks. We would have still lost the house in 2010 but it likely wouldn't have been an issue in this election. I absolutely think that ObamaCare premiums hurt clinton this time.

With all that being said, I am not going to choose between supporting no minimum wage or supporting all positions paying the same wage just to appease this site. lmao

[smoltchanov]

^ As i already said - you didn't have votes. I remember an armtwisting on part of Democratic whips to even get Obamacare (much more modest proposal) passed - and it passed by 3-4 votes and cost reelection to many congressmen. Single payer failed even in liberal Vermont, where outgoing Democratic governor Shumlin and Democratic legislative leaders acknowledged both it's failure as it is and lack of money to implement it. This result even helped Phil Scott to win a governorship (though he would win even without it). And if it failed in liberal Vermont - i can only guess what would happen with  an attempt to implement it country-wide..

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

But it's inane to fetishise moderation just because they are moderate. That's what I get from your posts - a lack od political understanding beyond "well the middle is the best, because it is the middle". That's the sort of mentality that props up vast, corrupt parties that merely define themselves as nonidealogical people of the middle.

No fetishisation. But generally i really prefer flexible moderates to rigid extremists of any sort. Because, IMHO, a flexibility is a plus in politics, compromise is frequently neccessary (and i prefer small steps to lack of any movement), and so on. So, in short, i am a natural moderate. As naturally i generally prefer a politicians of the same sort. In addition - present polarisation where "middle is almost empty" (look at present House - less then 10% are there, other are either liberals (yes, including moderate liberals, but - nevertheless) or conservatives (frequently - very rigid ones)) seems simply dangerous to me: it encourages a behavoir of " i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool" type, where everything is determined by brute force. In Russian history there were "bolsheviks vs. mensheviks" struggles, and "red" vs "white", which demonstated itself during Russian civil war of 1917-1920 with rivers of blood on both sides and where the only "reasonable" behavoir was "to fight an enemy until it's full extermination". An extreme polarisation may, in time, to lead to the same results...

American politics =\= Russian politics

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

But it's inane to fetishise moderation just because they are moderate. That's what I get from your posts - a lack od political understanding beyond "well the middle is the best, because it is the middle". That's the sort of mentality that props up vast, corrupt parties that merely define themselves as nonidealogical people of the middle.

No fetishisation. But generally i really prefer flexible moderates to rigid extremists of any sort. Because, IMHO, a flexibility is a plus in politics, compromise is frequently neccessary (and i prefer small steps to lack of any movement), and so on. So, in short, i am a natural moderate. As naturally i generally prefer a politicians of the same sort. In addition - present polarisation where "middle is almost empty" (look at present House - less then 10% are there, other are either liberals (yes, including moderate liberals, but - nevertheless) or conservatives (frequently - very rigid ones)) seems simply dangerous to me: it encourages a behavoir of " i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool" type, where everything is determined by brute force. In Russian history there were "bolsheviks vs. mensheviks" struggles, and "red" vs "white", which demonstated itself during Russian civil war of 1917-1920 with rivers of blood on both sides and where the only "reasonable" behavoir was "to fight an enemy until it's full extermination". An extreme polarisation may, in time, to lead to the same results...

Flexible politics is another word for easily being bought out. If you want a Russian parallel look at contemporary Russian politics. Does United Russia have an ideology? Well I guess it's sort of conservative and kinda populist, but it's more easy to view it as mangerialist, ideology free party of power, with no principles beyond sustaining its own tenure in power and enriching Putin's associates. That is the ultimate picture of ideology-free "moderate" "pragmatic" politics. As si the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, as is the Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico, as is the PMDB and the Liberal Parties of Canada and Fianna Fail and the Italian Christian Democrats and the Cuomo Democrats and the Independence Party of Iceland and every rotten shell party operating in Africa. I prefer parties that build their foundations on rock, not sand.

[smoltchanov]

I prefer parties that build their foundations on rock, not sand.

Parties, which "build their foundations on rock", usually have rock anvils around their necks. That's why I dislike them everywhere. But everyone is entitled to it's opinion..

[The Other Castro]

Nevermind, he's out:
"Rep. Pat Meehan to forego challenge to Sen. Bob Casey"

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/capitolinq/Rep-Pat-Meehan-to-forego-challenge-to-Sen-Bob-Casey.html?mobi=true

[KingSweden]

Nevermind, he's out:
"Rep. Pat Meehan to forego challenge to Sen. Bob Casey"

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/capitolinq/Rep-Pat-Meehan-to-forego-challenge-to-Sen-Bob-Casey.html?mobi=true

Casey looking much safer than Wolf so far

[Heisenberg]

Lou Barletta would be the strongest challenger, IMO: He can keep a lot of Trump voters who usually vote Dem, and would probably hold decent in the suburbs since he comes across as inoffensive. Tim Murphy would be my second choice, being from the Southwest part of the state. If neither run, then Mike Fitzpatrick would also be solid, he's out of office so he can focus on the campaign full-time.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Lou Barletta would be the strongest challenger, IMO: He can keep a lot of Trump voters who usually vote Dem, and would probably hold decent in the suburbs since he comes across as inoffensive. Tim Murphy would be my second choice, being from the Southwest part of the state. If neither run, then Mike Fitzpatrick would also be solid, he's out of office so he can focus on the campaign full-time.

Casey would wipe the floor with Barletta.  The man is hardly inoffensive and has a history of being an anti-immigration nut IIRC.  In any case, you guys aren't beating Casey, especially not in a Trump midterm.

[Heisenberg]

Lou Barletta would be the strongest challenger, IMO: He can keep a lot of Trump voters who usually vote Dem, and would probably hold decent in the suburbs since he comes across as inoffensive. Tim Murphy would be my second choice, being from the Southwest part of the state. If neither run, then Mike Fitzpatrick would also be solid, he's out of office so he can focus on the campaign full-time.

Casey would wipe the floor with Barletta.  The man is hardly inoffensive and has a history of being an anti-immigration nut IIRC.  In any case, you guys aren't beating Casey, especially not in a Trump midterm.

I know there are much better targets, but my point is Barletta is the type of Republican who'd be popular in historically-D areas that went for Trump. He just screams "America First" all over him.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Lou Barletta would be the strongest challenger, IMO: He can keep a lot of Trump voters who usually vote Dem, and would probably hold decent in the suburbs since he comes across as inoffensive. Tim Murphy would be my second choice, being from the Southwest part of the state. If neither run, then Mike Fitzpatrick would also be solid, he's out of office so he can focus on the campaign full-time.

Casey would wipe the floor with Barletta.  The man is hardly inoffensive and has a history of being an anti-immigration nut IIRC.  In any case, you guys aren't beating Casey, especially not in a Trump midterm.

I know there are much better targets, but my point is Barletta is the type of Republican who'd be popular in historically-D areas that went for Trump. He just screams "America First" all over him.

Barletta would get absolutely annihilated in the Philly suburbs; he'd lose by far more than Trump there.  And Casey's pretty popular with the voters you say Barletta would appeal to (I highly doubt that Barletta would have any crossover appeal, tbh).

[Kingpoleon]

I've changed my list of most electable people:
1. Mike Fitzpatrick
2. Ryan Costello
3. Charlie Dent
4. Jim Cawley
5. Jake Corman
6. Mary Beth Buchanan