| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| House Republicans to Target 80 Seats |
| 2009-07-31 |
| The National Republican Congressional Committee is targeting 80 Democratic-held House districts in 2010, according to Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, chairman of that GOP campaign unit. Sessions, who discussed his party's plans for the midterm elections with reporters Wednesday, said the figure includes 54 traditionally Republican seats that his party will try to wrest away from current Democratic occupants. The core strategy, Sessions said, will be to paint the Democratic moderates who represent many of those districts as enablers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who Republicans define as staunchly liberal. "We're going to work that angle that it is ... Democratic members that support Nancy Pelosi and empower her to do business the way she is," Sessions said. "These members have a chance on the floor on a regular basis to say, 'No, slow it down, let's look at the process.' And they have refused to do that." Republicans would regain the House majority if they were to make a net gain of 40 seats. "To get to 40, we're going to have to field at least 80 good candidates," Sessions said. Sessions did not go so far as to predict, though, that his party would recapture control of the House in the 2010 election. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #9 Pelosi is awful, but do you really want to replace her with someone who is a little more middle of the road and who has actual leadership ability? |
| Posted by: Iblis 2009-07-31 19:10 |
| #8 The again if you can think 'outside the box' 20 to 30 additional seats can get you a rational Donk Speaker if you're willing to back a separate/reform block within the House. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-07-31 15:42 |
| #7 House rules completely favor the majority, so it doesn't matter much if we just get 20 or 30 seats. It'll matter some, but not nearly enough. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2009-07-31 13:27 |
| #6 If you want middle ground voters then fiscally conservative will be better than social conservatives. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-07-31 09:43 |
| #5 They might try fielding some actual conservative candidates. Just for a change.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-07-31 08:34 |
| #4 Procopius2k has it right, when we field candidates that are no different from the Democrat, why would voters change? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2009-07-31 08:28 |
| #3 we're going to have to field at least 80 good candidates Nope. you're going to need to field at least 80 good Republican candidates. The last national election should have told you what happens when you field RINOs and a whole block of otherwise supportive voters found no reason to vote at all. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-07-31 08:13 |
| #2 I think 20 is more likely than 40, particularly if the economy begins to tick upwards in early 2010 as some predict. I'm not sure the Pubs have yet learned their lessons from 2006 and 2008. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-07-31 08:12 |
| #1 80? Not gonna happen. 40? Not gonna happen. 20 or 30...that could happen. And that would be good enough. 20 or 30 more Republican members of the house means that the Dems throw Pelosi out on her butt... and replace her with someone that I didn't see marching with a founder of NAMBLA in an SF Gay Day Parade. That's change I can believe in. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2009-07-31 01:28 |