Why are we having so much success in the gubenatorial races but not ...

[SensibleAmerican]

in the House races? We are poised to sweep most of the governor's mansions in 2006, with the possibility of winning in 4 of the 5 biggest states (though California and Florida will be challenges no doubt).

However, when it comes to the House races, the Cook Political Report only shows 14 House races that are tossups. And I doubt things are helped with Bush's improving poll numbers (which are now at 44 according to Rasmussen). Historically, Republican voters turn out more than Democratic voters and we need to be polling at least 10 to 15 points higher than the Republicans in order to retake the House. But our ability to cross this margin seems up in the air right now.

Elections are so nerve-racking ...

[Atman]

1. Bush's poll numbers -- which "don't matter" -- will be 47-48% by Nov

They have to be for Diebold's magic to work. And they will be. Guaran-effing-teed. The GOP will not lose control in November. Will be finally rise up, like even the Mexicans are doing? Or will we all just shrug again and hop into the SUV for a trip to the mall?

[Skinner]

2. Here's one reason.

(Let me preface my response by admitting that I haven't been following the elections very closely.)

House races are rarely competitive because districts are gerrymandered by politicians to favor one party or another. In any given state, most districts will be designed to strongly favor one party over another, and only a small number of districts will be competitive.

Entire states, on the other hand, cannot be gerrymandered. So the population of a state is not artificially weighted by politicans to favor one party over the other. So in any given year, the average state (taken as a whole) will be more competitive than the average House district.