As for the House, the Dems are absolutely in denial. In the first place, redistricting has already added a slew of new GOP seats. Yes, there are some retirements (natural ebb and flow). But I've been hearing since 1994 about how the GOP "could lose" the House, and we have about as many seats now as we did then.
I do think that the GREAT recruitment job Bush/Rove did in 2002 is having an effect now, in that it siphoned off a lot of candidates and there are no "names" or "stars" to run in places like NV, MT, or FL.
As a North Carolinian, the Burr number is disappointing to me as well. But I am not worried too much about that one yet because of name recognition. Bowles lost a heated and prominent race to Elizabeth Dole in 2002, so his name is well known. Also, many polls suggested he might pull off an upset, but ultimately Dole won easily. They are both vulnerable on the NAFTA issue that may have cost thousands of textile jobs in the state as Burr has voted for free trade while Bowles was with Clinton when he signed them all into law.
Maybe this is the case in SC as well as Tanenbaum has won statewide office, but so has one of the potential Republicans. I forget his name, but he was Governor from 94-98 and lost largely because of the lottery issue. Also, I think Linday Graham was thought to be in a closer race than what actually materialized on election day.
Nevada is a disappointment because Reid won by a hair last time, so he would have been vulnerable. But the GOP did need a star candidate to make up for what has most likely been demographic changes in favor of the Dems.
I just think the Dems have an economic message that for many in the South trumps their conservative views on social issues. That is how we ended up with Edwards. That and an incredibly inept campaign by Lauch Faircloth.