If you understand my point, then why argue just to argue?
This doesn't even go into the fact that people who run generally are Senators/Governors (Romney, McCain, Gore before he was VP, Dukakis, Mondale, Humphrey, etc.). The House is a different experience. People from the House aren't running for president. Senators and governors are, and people will either skip the House (as Harris did, and Booker, and Obama, and Hillary, and Warren) or go from the House to a higher office.
I don't think you're following me at all. If someone wants to argue that the House is the same as the Senate, I will take issue because that's not true. If you want to argue that House members made more ripples running in recent presidential elections compared to businessmen, I'll take issue because that's not true. And if you want to argue that Beto is the best choice, I'll likely take issue because he did less in the House than Obama did in the Senate.
Partly because, again, he was using it as a stepping stone to get into the Senate. And partly because the Senate is more important.
Many of Clinton's positions and lack of foresight allowed for plenty of attack material. The fact that Trump was using her vote for Iraq against her -- as the Republican candidate -- was stunning. No argument about Benghazi being a dishonest investigation or the emails being overblown (even though her response to the initial story in 2015 sucked and she just shouldn't have done it anyway).
