Rick writes, re the House bieng "in play:"

"How is this possible, given what we've heard about how effective
partisan gerrymanders have been in the states? Is it that redistricters
got too greedy, drawing lines with not enough margin for a shift in the
national mood from one party to another? And what does this potential
shift say about whether court intervention is necessary to promote
political competition in the face of such gerrymanders?"

This seems to me a classic "false choice."

We have had national polling for the ruling party at or below 1994
levels and we're just now accepting that a **15** seat margin is in
play.  Remember that in 1994 the GOP blew past their **40 seat** deficit
and picked up 54 seats.  

Obviously, gerrymandering is critically relevant here, as the Democratic
tidal wave I hope for & expect will still likely leave them with
narrower control in 2007 than the GOP enjoyed in 1995, DESPITE (a) a
wave of similar proportions AND (b) the fact that the Dems started 25
seats ahead of the GOP.