The technical definition of a “wave election” is an election in which all or nearly all of the close contests break in favor of whichever party’s wave it is. I do not believe there will be such a clear pattern in today’s election. Consequently, there will be no wave.
Update
Charlie Cook describes what a wave would look like:
The first test of the existence of a political wave is whether the benefiting party avoids losing many of its own endangered seats. The second is whether it wins an overwhelming number of the purple, competitive or, in this case, light blue Democratic-tilting but still endangered seats. So, if Republicans limit their own losses to just one of their own competitive seats (for example, Roberts in Kansas) and win at least three of the four key purple states (the open seat in Iowa and the three seats held by Democratic incumbents—Kay Hagan in North Carolina, Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, and Mark Udall in Colorado), that starts qualifying as a wave. Just winning one or two out of the four neutral-site contests might well help the GOP secure the majority, but it hardly qualifies as a wave. These are seats where it is the political environment and President Obama, not the map itself, that are the cause of Democratic pain. Obama carried all four states in both 2008 and 2012; losses in these would mean voters who voted for him have officially reversed course.
The third test of a real wave is the ability of a party to pull off real upsets, knocking off incumbents who were not on the lists of first- or second-tier vulnerable seats. If, for example, someone like Mark Warner in Virginia, Al Franken in Minnesota, or Jeff Merkley in Oregon were to lose, that would be a wave in the sense of 1980, 1994, 2006, or 2008. These years saw wins that were way more than just a result of the map. There now appears to be little chance that any of these three will lose their races.
Is that really what appears to be in the making? I guess we’ll have a better idea after the polls close tonight.
I thought this Cook observation was interesting:
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in shielding these and other senators from having to cast tough votes, also prevented them from having the chance to break with President Obama on high-profile issues. As a result, each racked up what have been perceived as very high Obama support levels that were often used mercilessly in negative ads against them.”