Just out of curiousity...why is it not likely that

[dorktv]

the Dems will pick up a chunk of house seats with the downticket effect? Most cases it is the third one on the ballot...so not too inconcieveble right?

[snowbear]

1. All in good time...

I doubt they'll pick up enough house seats "this time" around.. Senate maybe--- Senate I'm REALLLLLY hoping--- House though? Soon...

First step is to get President Kerry and VP Edwards in there truly "Uniting" and never "Dividing"

Eventually everybody will be back to the Democratic party - - Everybody who is anybody. You'll see - we'll get there! :toast:

[liberalpragmatist]

2. Gerrymandering

Only a handful of seats are up for grabs and many of them are held by Republicans in republican-leaning areas. Plus, we'll probably lose something like 5 seats in Texas because of 2002 redistricting.

When there are so few seats that are up for grabs, it makes it unlikely that we'll pick up the necessary number. We'd have to win something like 3/4 of the contested seats. It *might* happen if there's an 11th-hour Kerry landslide by 10 points or more (ala Reagan), but barring that possibility, it just isn't likely to happen

[tritsofme]

3. Reagan won nearly 60% of the vote in 1984

and he still never wrestled control of the House.

The entire purpose of these seats are to keep them in the hands of the incumbent.

[tcfrogs]

4. I read somewhere

(too late to remember where, sorry) that there are only about 30 competitive races. Hell, maybe I read it here somewhere.

[bluestateguy]

5. Texas

Had Texas state Senator John Whitmire not lost his balls and slithered back into Texas from New Mexico during the Killer D walkout, the Democrats may have had a chance at picking up or winning control of the US House.

Democrats have a chance to make House gains in New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Kentucky, Washington and Connecticut. But the new computer-software drawn lily white Republican districts in Texas will most likely wash out any of those gains.