Not really Nyvin. It's not likely, but it's possible.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2010 Generic Congressional Vote
The generic ballot in June 2010 looks very similar to how it does now (locked neck-in-neck between the two parties).
I could easily (about 25-30% chance IMO) see the GOP break away and curbstomp those big-government liberal Democrats who support bigger government and less economic freedom.
In 2010 the GOP only won 6 seats, and that was considered a "blowout". Six seats is the bare minimum to take the majority in 2014. They still didn't take the majority in 2010.
In 2010 the GOP beat three incumbent democrats (the other three pickups were open seats). That was in a blowout year mind you, in 2014 you're expecting to beat three just to take the majority with 51 seats (not including John Walsh in this)...to go further then that you have to win in harder states that Obama won in 2012.
In 2014 there is nowhere near as much momentum behind them and the polling shows close races for all the incumbents in competitive seats. Also this time there is the chance of pickups in Kentucky and Georgia.
A blowout year "bigger" than 2010 (which is what's needed) is borderline impossible.
You're failing to take account the difference in Senate classes.
In 2010 the Senators who got elected in 2004 were put up for reelection. 2004 was a fairly Republican year, so there weren't that many pickup opportunities available.
In 2014, the Senators who got elected in 2008 will be put up for reelection. 2008 was a Democratic landslide year. Therefore, it will be easier for the GOP to gain seats in 2014 than 2010. Therefore, a blowout need not be "bigger" than 2010; a smaller "blowout" would be sufficient to get 6 seats.
Bottom-line is that Georgia will almost certainly go GOP due to:
1) the fact that both GOP candidates are quite electable(Kingston/Perdue)
2) Nunn has not yet been attacked(explaining her high poll numbers)
3) the run-off (so Nunn must go over 50%)
Kentucky will go GOP due to the immense partisan lean of the state. More importantly, the Democrats have never won KY without a strong coal country backing, and Alison Grimes' quote saying "I do support the national Democratic agenda" is going to kill her in those areas on the KY-WV border that Dems need to win. McConnell also now leads in the HuffPollster average.
I think we both agree that MT/WV/SD are easy GOP pickups, more or less.
That gets us to GOP + 3.
Next up:
Louisiana- While I used to think Landrieu was quite formidable and thought she would win, she's slipped a lot in polling and even NYTimes Upshot(which is bearish on GOP Senate chances) has Landrieu as a clear underdog.
Arkansas-Pryor appeared to be rebounding, but a Crossroads poll has Cotton + 3 and Rasmussen has Cotton +4. While both of these polling firms lean GOP(though Rasmussen is suspect, which I'll explain later), Arkansas undecideds are overwhelmingly anti-Obama and anti-Obamacare. I'd like to see another PPP poll(which previously had Pryor +1 or Pryor + 2, I believe) or Quinnipiac/SUSA one to get a better feel on the race. But I think the momentum is back in Cotton's direction and he should pull it off.
North Carolina-Hagan's been trailing recently. She was down 5 in a Civitas poll and down 1 in Rasmussen (note that Rasmussen is no longer run by Scott Rasmussen, so while it's tilted R in the past, it might not be any longer. Rasmussen consistently gives Obama higher approvals than other polling firms, so it might not be a biased pollster anymore).
Tillis is likely in the lead here.
Alaska-Like in North Carolina, the Republican (Dan Sullivan) leads in Huffington Post Pollster average, though barely. Alaska is weird because polls there underestimate incumbent strength and overestimate Democratic strength. This one's hard to call.
Bottom line is that in the 4 races above in red states, the GOP will almost certainly win at least 2 of them, quite likely 3, or possibly 4. The GOP leads in HuffPollster polling average in Louisiana, Alaska, and North Carolina, and barely trails in Arkansas(but Cotton looks like he's rebounding there).
This gives the GOP a +5 to +7 seat gain.
All they have to do to secure a Senate takeover is to win 1-3+ of the following seats, which even gives the GOP breathing room if they screw up elsewhere:
Colorado-Mark Udall is only barely ahead, and Cory Gardner proved he could take out an incumbent Dem. Plus the new coal regulations could hurt Udall. I say Udall has slight edge but not much.
New Hampshire-Scott Brown isn't looking great here due to the carpet-bagger/energy bill problem, but 2010 proved that when the GOP wins in NH, they win big(Ayotte won the Senate election w/ 60%). Even a somewhat-weakened candidate like Brown can win if the environment is good enough in NH.
Iowa-Joni Ernst is a solid candidate against Bruce Braley. Probably the best GOP chance in this list.
Michigan-Terry Land's slipped in polls to Gary Peters, but she still has an outside chance if the environment turns from a gale on the Democrats to a tsunami.
Virginia/Oregon/Minnesota-Gillespie, Wehby, and McFadden are all decent candidates against solid incumbents in blue-ish states(except Gillespie, who is facing a very popular opponent in a true swing state). These are all serious long-shots, but expanding the map definitely hurts the Dems.
My guess would be GOP + 6 or +7.
