1.  The superdelegates were created after McGovern in '72 as a safeguard to stop a nominee that may lead to such a beating.  Since then, they have never interfered in the primary, even when 12 years later the Dems lost 49 states again.  The only reason they garnered any attention in 2008 is because they were the only rationalization for Hillary staying in the race so long when Obama's earned delegate lead became insurmountable.  And I have no idea why you're grouping regular delegates in with them.  If anything, Democratic primary delegates are apportioned more democratically than many Republican primaries with winner take all contests.

2.  Obama's popularity has not halved since any time, even right after the inaugural, for the simple fact that he's never even been close to the upper eighties.  I know this doesn't matter, but that was another nonsensical statement.  On another point that doesn't matter, 2012 presidential match up polls right now have less political meaning than my last shit (although if we're counting, the last one I saw had Obama beating Palin handily.)

3.  Elections don't exist in a vacuum.  Even ignoring the 2008 elections, the independent swing to Dems in 2006 was just as much of a 'wave' as their swing to the GOP in 2010.  They have become extraordinarily fickle and their swings increasingly volatile.  In the eyes of independent voters, the concrete hasn't even been laid yet, let alone hardened for 2012.

4.  Midterm electorates are notoriously more conservative than presidential electorates.  This is even more pronounced when considering Obama's base of young and minority voters.

5.  Even if the national mood and unemployment rate stays static, it will be very difficult for Republicans to pick up the likes of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Washington (where, it should be noted, Patty Murray just won in the only statewide election, which is what we're talking about here.)  On the other hand, I doubt Indiana or North Carolina will be in play for Obama this time around.  It's also looking like Ohio may be the most difficult swing state for Dems.  Pennsylvania has always been the GOP's Moby Dick, but the Dems won't have Rendell around to put up massive turnout in Philly to counteract what I can personally attest to is indeed 'the south of the north.'

6.  With reapportionment the electoral votes of many states will change.  I used to have an estimate on the gains and losses of all the states but I can't find it.  What's interesting is out west, where the Republican wave/tsunami/earthquake/apocalyptic explosion was not nearly as severe as the rest of the country.  Between Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, there are currently 19 votes.  This should go up by at least four, I think five (btw, I'm also pretty sure Texas alone will get 3 extra seats.)  With even a modest presidential turnout, all three could remain blue for quite sometime which would gravely limit the GOP's electoral map.  This is why smart Republicans are very concerned about the Latino vote, and there are already whispers of putting Rubio on the ticket.  Which, I think is fine, he's a very impressive politician.  But if they do, I don't want to hear anything about identity politics again.