ShareThis Page
Taking a cue from Lamb, Democratic candidates reject Nancy Pelosi |

Taking a cue from Lamb, Democratic candidates reject Nancy Pelosi

Wesley Venteicher
| Wednesday, June 20, 2018 10:30 a.m
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., criticizes President Trump's Wall Street policies Monday on Capitol Hill. Joining Pelosi are Reps. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and Rep. Al Green, D-Texas.

Early in his campaign for Congress in Southwestern Pennsylvania, Democrat Conor Lamb announced he wouldn’t support Nancy Pelosi to lead the party.

In the three months since his razor-thin victory in a Republican-leaning district, at least 20 Democrats running for House seats around the country have adopted the tactic, POLITICO reported Wednesday .

The GOP spent more than $10 million attacking Lamb, including many ads trying to tie him to Pelosi, employing a tactic that had proved successful in special elections in Georgia and Montana. Lamb defeated Republican Rick Saccone , of Elizabeth, in the March 13 special election.

As the Democratic Party looks to gain at least 24 seats to win the House majority this fall, ties to Pelosi can still damage candidates, pollsters told POLITICO.

Former Rep. Tom Davis, who led the National Republican Campaign Committee, acknowledged to the publication that Lamb’s strategy seemed to work.

“It took the most potent issue in that race and turned it on its head,” Davis told the publication.

If Democrats win the majority, the party would hold a secret ballot for the new speaker of the House and then a candidate would need to win 218 votes on the House floor. Pelosi, 78, has led the party in the chamber for nearly 16 years.

Wes Venteicher is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-380-5676, or via Twitter @wesventeicher.

Wes Venteicher is a Tribune-Review staff reporter. You can contact Wes at 412-380-5676, or via Twitter .

Categories: Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.