You are absolutely right about low turnover in the House of Representatives. I wrote both a book and an update article in the journal of the American Academy of Actuaries on this very subject. Ironically, the lowest defeat rate for incumbents was in 1792, two centuries ago, when 0% of the incumbents running for reelection were defeated. (However, in that year, turnover was 30% because that portion of the House chose to go home and not run again.)
It is only in the last 70 years that the House has become a obody with "permanent" membership. That's why I titled my article for the Actuaries, 'Til Death Do Us Part." LOL.
IMHO, the only solution for the general 95% reelection rate of imcumbents in the House is term limits. Campaigns against incumbents are always uphill battles. But campaigns for open seats are usually competitive -- the parties throw good candidates with ample fund-raising into open seat contests precisely because they recognize the opportunity for success. In close to one-third of all House elections, the non-incumbent party does not bother to run a legitimate candidate with a competent campaign, the just concede the seat to the incumbent.
John / Billybob
In close to one-third of all House elections, the non-incumbent party does not bother to run a legitimate candidate with a competent campaign, the just concede the seat to the incumbent.
You've just described the exact situation in the 5th congressional district of Mn. (Mpls) I had the honor of being served by Martin OLAV Sabo. he been in office for somewhere around...forever.