Washington ? Numerous Democratic strategists have become convinced in recent months that their party is unlikely to pick up the dozen seats it needs to retake the House, even in the face of a sluggish economy and mounting questions about Iraq that could be issues to use against the Republican-dominated administration.

Analysts who have been following the early battle for control of the 435-member House say there is a relative lack of public anger to fuel anti-incumbent voting and a strong GOP fund-raising effort under way that will be difficult for Democrats to surmount.

The biggest factor is one that has thwarted Democratic hopes before and, if anything, is growing: Congressional redistricting has produced a remarkably small number of competitive districts nationwide. As a result, Democrats must win a huge percentage of the toss-up races to regain the House majority they lost a decade ago.

“There’s just not enough districts in play,” said Stuart Rothenberg, who edits the Rothenberg Political Report. Democrats “will need a wave” to win back the House, he said — and thus far, no such wave seems to be forming.

As Republican pollster Glen Bolger put it, Democrats “have to draw a royal flush to take back the House. I’ve never had one of those.”

Most of the redistricting damage was done two years ago, when the states used the 2000 census’s data to redraw congressional maps and lock hundreds of House members into safe districts — thus helping to protect the Republican majority, which now stands at 229 to 205 (plus one liberal independent).

Given these problems, even the most gung-ho Democrats now speak of only modest gains next year, hoping to lay the groundwork for a House takeover in 2006, when Republicans will not have President Bush at the top of the ticket.

“In terms of basic vitals — money, recruitment and the message environment — all the signs are pointed toward a slight gain for us,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee vice chairman.