People sure do set the bar high. The reality is a net gain of 20 seats is a wave anything over 31 is tsunami because the Democrats haven't made a net gain over 31 in the last 50 years and that ignoring the level of partisanship of today.
As for the Senate if the Democrats break even in the senate and hold all their seat. It will mean that Democrats won in 10 states that Trump won. To put that in perspective as long as Obama has been President (2010-2016) Republican have only won 10 different senate seats in states that voted for Obama in 2008. If that not wave what is?
I mostly agree with this. Just because the House doesn't flip doesn't mean it isn't still a wave. It just means that structural disadvantages, including gerrymandering, were enough to blunt the wave. If Democrats won 23 seats, how is that fundamentally different than winning 24? Or 25?
I'm not 100% sure on the Senate. The map is very unfavorable, after all. I think having like -1 net loss but taking over the House still qualifies as a wave.
In the end, I think the House PV matters the most. If Democrats win the House PV by 8%, that qualifies as a wave in my book, even if the seat turnover is lackluster. Those are wave numbers, and if the seat share doesn't reflect it, it's just a reminder of how biased the system is against population clustering / city folk.
