As for party switcher, like you say so many on the house side depend on who is left standing, but what happens with the GOP senate caucus if Republicans have 49 or 50 seats? Do endangered incumbents like Nelson (NE), Webb (VA) or Leiberman (CT) join the GOP caucus? Would either of the 3 be welcome? The ultimate ironly may be that Tea Party activists helped defeat Mike Castle in the DE primary to protect the intellectual purity of the party, but may get Independent Joe Lieberman as the 51st Caucus vote as their door prize.

What's the deal with New York and California (the two biggest fiscal train-wrecks in the country)?

There are almost 60 million people in these two states. One-fifth of the total U.S. population. How can they be so out of sync with the real world?

C'mon folks, even New Jersey is making an effort...

On the House side I think the party switchers will be there - it seems almost a foregone conclusion that the GOP will take control of the House, and that means that there will be right-leaning Democrats (especially in the South) who, like 1994, see that they are better served in the GOP. If they make the switch immediately (like in 1994 - with announcements coming mostly in the period from the election through the first couple weeks of the new Congress), I think they give themselves plenty of time to build a base in the GOP and ingratiate themselves to the activists. It also minimizes the chances that the switch looks purely political. Specter didn't lose because he was a bad Democrat - he lost because his switch looked like a totally unprincipled attempt to save himself from certain defeat (which it was). Griffith got into the same position - he jumped after health care when the wave was already building and anybody with any sense could see what was coming - Griffith looked like he was trying to save his job from a tough challenge from the GOP.

If a Gene Taylor hangs on and then come late December announces a switch (maybe after it becomes clear that Pelosi will continue as the party leader), I think that's no different than the 1994 situation. Billy Tauzin, Nathan Deal, Mike Parker, Richard Shelby, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell were all Democrats at the 1994 election and all switched in late 1994 or early 1995 (I believe all except Campbell did so right at the start of the new Congress, Campbell in March 1995). All won reelection as Republicans at their next election - (Deal stayed until just this year and is still winning elections as a Republican. So is Shelby).

Speaking of party-switchers - before the DE primary, RedState claimed Castle would eventually switch parties, then resign so Beau Biden could be appointed. It was described as a "done deal".

One of the reasons I no longer read RedState ...

Toomey in Pennsylvania is probably a lot healthier than some people give him credit. Based what observers who have watched the election long and deeper than I have, he is going win by more than just 'a nose'.

mypalfish,

CA, WV and WA are not goners by a long shot. Look, polls are anchored by historic trends. Think of it as a restraint placed on the statistics that will not allow them to show something wildly out of the historic pattern. It is why Gallup has produced two turnout models (they should have done three).

Finally, you cannot lose 60+ house seats and not lose the Senate. These are not completely independent trends - they are coupled and have feedback into other races in the state or nation.

The larger the House wave, the more likely the state polls are just not geared to catch the wave.

Right now it looks like the GOP is surging in house races and slipping in the Senate. That seems a bit odd because the various elections that have been held since Obama's election have shifted sharply towards the GOP statewide but only modestly in house races.

Of course, part of that may just be that the prospects for the Senate were looking so spectacular a few weeks ago. Beating incumbents in places like California or Washington would be as much of an accomplishment to winning some of the House races that are just starting to look competitive. Most of the Senate seats up this year are either already held by the GOP or in pretty solidly blue states. If we'd had this conversation a year ago I think we'd have questioned whether even a superwave could win the Senate.

@mypalfish
If we get the Senate, great. If not, we still won. The next Senate will be more conservative no matter which party is in control. The case could even be made that 48 or 49 Republicans could easily forge a working majority on fiscal issues with a half dozen moderate Dems who are in increasingly red states. In any case, the Obama attempt to "transform" the nation is OVER. They lost, we won! The next two election cycles will be very scary for incumbent Senate Dems -- there are a lot of 'em on the block, and a lot of 'em who are watching their states getting increasingly Red (I'm talking about YOU Webb, Pryor, Conrad, Nelson, Landrieu, Baucus, et al.

Sure enough, Rasmussen has Manchin now ahead by 3 pts over Raese. THAT is the kind of momentum I was hoping to see from our candidates as election day draws closer. Instead, Fiorina is fading in CA, Raese is fading in WV, McMahon is all but left for dead in CT and poor Christine O'Donnell's campaign is barely functional in DE. We'll see what the latest polls show in WA, but I would be astounded to see any positive momentum for Rossi.