PA-Sen: Barletta is running

[smoltchanov]

Charlie Dent would be a better fit to take on Casey.

Frankly, Charlie Dent isn't a significant improvement on Bob Casey.  I would rather lower our odds of winning slightly (I don't think it even would in a state with a pro-life tradition and a nominally pro-life Democratic candidate) for a chance at a real conservative.  It doesn't have to be a Freedom Caucus type, but it does have to be a solid conservative.  Why not Costello or Fitzpatrick?

I don't see big difference between Dent and Costello, except on abortion issue (where i, naturally, prefer pro-choice position)

[smoltchanov]

I don't see big difference between Dent and Costello, except on abortion issue (where i, naturally, prefer pro-choice position)

Costello is probably one of the twenty-five most moderate Republicans in the House, whereas Dent is probably in the top three(along with Ileana Ros-Lehtinehen and Richard Hanna).

Dold has to be more liberal than IRL, as does Freilinghuysen.  I know Dold is retiring.  In my opinion, if one is not pro-life, they are not a Republican or a conservative.

Bullsh*t. Governors Baker and Scott, Senator Collins and dozens state legislators come to mind immediately. Plus - hundreds former Republican politicians of very high caliber. Right-wing idiocy.

[smoltchanov]

I don't see big difference between Dent and Costello, except on abortion issue (where i, naturally, prefer pro-choice position)

Costello is probably one of the twenty-five most moderate Republicans in the House, whereas Dent is probably in the top three(along with Ileana Ros-Lehtinehen and Richard Hanna).

Dold has to be more liberal than IRL, as does Freilinghuysen.  I know Dold is retiring.  In my opinion, if one is not pro-life, they are not a Republican or a conservative.

Bullsh*t. Governors Baker and Scott, Senator Collins and dozens state legislators come to mind immediately. Plus - hundreds former Republican politicians of very high caliber. Right-wing idiocy.

Two terrible people and mediocre Senator...great examples!

One more bullsh*t. That happens. Especially in empty minds of extremists..

[smoltchanov]

I don't see big difference between Dent and Costello, except on abortion issue (where i, naturally, prefer pro-choice position)

Costello is probably one of the twenty-five most moderate Republicans in the House, whereas Dent is probably in the top three(along with Ileana Ros-Lehtinehen and Richard Hanna).

Dold has to be more liberal than IRL, as does Freilinghuysen.  I know Dold is retiring.  In my opinion, if one is not pro-life, they are not a Republican or a conservative.

Bullsh*t. Governors Baker and Scott, Senator Collins and dozens state legislators come to mind immediately. Plus - hundreds former Republican politicians of very high caliber. Right-wing idiocy.

Two terrible people and mediocre Senator...great examples!

One more bullsh*t. That happens. Especially in empty minds of extremists..

You know what's the worst part about Moderate Heroes?

The fact that they thing being a centrist automatically makes them smarter and better than those to the left or right.

They generally are. At least they know that politics is "an art of compromise". The extreme left and right recognize brute force only. That's why i viscerally despise both. And THE most extreme left or right are so authoritarian that it borders with fascism. They don't recognize anything but "fight until complete extermination of opponents"

[smoltchanov]

Feeling is mutual buddy . Thanks for confirming my point.

I never doubted it in first place)))) But you need us more then we need you)))). At least - for about next 10 years..

[smoltchanov]

Feeling is mutual buddy . Thanks for confirming my point.

I never doubted it in first place)))) But you need us more then we need you)))). At least - for about next 10 years..

See that's the thing, we really don't need you all that much tbh.  We'll inevitably win enough moderate hero votes regardless that most elections will come down to turnout rather than unicorns, swing-voters, and other mythical creatures.

With your approach (going left and ONLY left) you will win less and less moderates every year. And you are in minority already: about 28% of Americans call itself liberals, and 37 - conservatives (with 35 - moderates). So, to win you need about 2/3 of us. And one plus of centrist position - we can choose whom to block with, you have nowhere to go, but in center..

[smoltchanov]

Feeling is mutual buddy . Thanks for confirming my point.

I never doubted it in first place)))) But you need us more then we need you)))). At least - for about next 10 years..

See that's the thing, we really don't need you all that much tbh.  We'll inevitably win enough moderate hero votes regardless that most elections will come down to turnout rather than unicorns, swing-voters, and other mythical creatures.

With your approach (going left and ONLY left) you will win less and less moderates every year. And you are in minority already: about 28% of Americans call itself liberals, and 37 - conservatives (with 35 - moderates). So, to win you need about 2/3 of us. And one plus of centrist position - we can choose whom to block with, you have nowhere to go, but in center..

The most popular candidates with independents this cycle were Trump and Bernie.

We may need some regular people who call themselves moderate because liberals spit on them and cons steal from them. We may need some people who call themselves conservative because their middle class status is slipping through their fingers and they want to hold on to what they have. But we certainly don't need Moderate Hero ideologues, which you are.  

I surely will not die because of it. You may be ABSOLUTELY sure of it. Happy losing elections further. Before this year you had an excuse that midyears are bad for you, but Presidential years are good. Now you got big slap in the face, and, what's hilarious- from Trump of all people))). S*ck it! And, because you don't want to learn a lessons, as i already said- happy losing future to you, guys! Be proud of your 2.5 million vote advantage that means nothing in reality.

P.S. I know, the only "ideologues" you need are far left ideologues, which irritated normal people so much, that theye mbraced Trump of all persons. Be proud of it, no one, but you, could make it..

[smoltchanov]

Uh, Trump's victory is proof that centrism doesn't win elections in contemporary America. Maybe smoltchanov doesn't realize this because he lives in Russia but Clinton ran as a centrist Democrat and did not emphasize her platform all that often. Her messaging was focused on "values", not on the minimum wage or repealing the Hyde amendment.

Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. Elizabeth Warren is one of the most popular Democrats in the country. Al Franken crushed his opponent in 2014 and Rick Nolan won this year by running as something of a progressive. If you're looking for evidence that "moderation" matters in the eyes of voters, you won't find it in this year's results. Working class voters respond to radicalism in 2016, not "moderation"; if you want to appeal to the Heartland, running on centrism is a recipe for disaster.

Don't worry about me: i spent enough time in US and have enough relatives here (though i, myself, was forced to return because of personal reasons) to be competent. Yes, i am an Internet-based now (mostly), but even DKE recognizes that Clinton's campaign was "more progressive" then Obama's, and appealed almost exclusively to social liberals, at the expense of good economic programs, so she is as good a centrist as i am ultraconservative))) 28% of liberals (and, BTW, not all of them are very liberal - i have a lot of normal moderate liberal friends, most of which went for Clinton this year, but only barely (holding their nose), and some - decided not to vote at all) can't expect to win without support of moderates - after all tail doesn't wag a dog (and - MUST not). If these 28% will insist on imposing their views on other - they will lose. And, BTW, for every Nolan there is Walz and there is Peterson))) Even in Democratic party (and i don't even need to go into another state to give these examples). I had a good laugh seeng Liberty counrty in Florida (with 75% Democratic registration and almost exclusively Democratic local government) giving Hillary less then 20% of vote. Before that everyone talked racism when it gave Obama about 28%, but she is even white. No, it was a rejection of Democratic policy as presented by party leader. And Bernie? Yes, he could win Iowa. But equally possible that he would lose Virginia.

L

[smoltchanov]

I don't see big difference between Dent and Costello, except on abortion issue (where i, naturally, prefer pro-choice position)

Costello is probably one of the twenty-five most moderate Republicans in the House, whereas Dent is probably in the top three(along with Ileana Ros-Lehtinehen and Richard Hanna).

Dold has to be more liberal than IRL, as does Freilinghuysen.  I know Dold is retiring.  In my opinion, if one is not pro-life, they are not a Republican or a conservative.

Bullsh*t. Governors Baker and Scott, Senator Collins and dozens state legislators come to mind immediately. Plus - hundreds former Republican politicians of very high caliber. Right-wing idiocy.

Two terrible people and mediocre Senator...great examples!

One more bullsh*t. That happens. Especially in empty minds of extremists..

You know what's the worst part about Moderate Heroes?

The fact that they thing being a centrist automatically makes them smarter and better than those to the left or right.

They generally are. At least they know that politics is "an art of compromise". The extreme left and right recognize brute force only. That's why i viscerally despise both. And THE most extreme left or right are so authoritarian that it borders with fascism. They don't recognize anything but "fight until complete extermination of opponents"

roflcopter

America's two most popular and transformative (Lincoln and FDR) Presidents were "extremists" who largely ignored the idea that "politics is an art compromise". While it is true that both Lincoln and FDR compromised within their own party and evolved on issues in a pretty strategic manner, it's pretty inarguable that they were "extremists" in many respects. Lincoln was the standard bearer of a party that welcomed the American Civil War as an opportunity to abolish slavery (historiography has moved in this direction as of late - chief abolitionist idea was that war-time scenarios were the best grounds to get rid of this institution). FDR, time and time again, challenged tradition in ways that critics could describe as "authoritarian", like when he tried to pack the Supreme Court or the fact that he ran for more than two terms.

Radicals get things done. Moderates do nothing. Politics isn't about the art of compromise, it's about the art of using power effectively as a tool to accomplish societal objectives.

Lie. On both points. Republican party leaders (including Lincoln) tried to find a compromise with South on slavery issue, but fire-eaters in the South made this impossible. As a rule - compromise with extremists is impossible, because extremists doesn't know what compromise is. And it was THEM who made a first shot of Civil War. And FDR, essentially, sacrificed civil rights in the South (it took Truman and post-war 1948  for it to come to the fore) for the sake of economic recovery and victory in war. Again - compromise. He need Southern votes and couldn't get them otherwise. His attempt to pack the court collapsed EXACTLY because "compromise" was abandoned here - he simply went too far and was rebuffed..

And NOW - both parties became such monstrosity that many people (including me, but absolutely - not only) simply say "plague on BOTH your houses!"

[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)))

[smoltchanov]

The only pro-business centrist Democrat I can think of that overcame a pretty pro-Trump district is Josh Gottheimer, and really that's mostly because he blew up the airwaves and Scott Garrett is a gross person.

O'Halleran? And not all centrist Democrats this year come from Trump districts: Crist, Schneider and Correa will, most likely, have a a center-left voting record. May be - even Lawson..

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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))))

[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...

[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..

[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..