Indeed, however the more accurate thing to look at would be 2006.
Indeed. The issue is, just like in 2006, reading what it is will "please" them.
Yes, and specifically to get **** done and create jobs in a conservative manner.
In 2006 the Democrats got swept into office with the focus being on Anti-War sentiment, and the secondary sentiment being against Republican and Bush policies in general. They did this by running moderate to conservative "blue dog" Democrats. After winning they misread the mandate and decided it meant support of universal health care, bailouts, stimulus, cap and trade, and other such things they've been trying to push.
In 2010 Republicans got swept into congress by rejecting moderate and liberal republicans in exchange for conservative ones, and based on a message of fixing the deficit and economy with lowered spending, smaller government, and not raising taxes.
Like the Democrats, if they misread what they were elected for they're going to be booted out. HOWEVER, what they got elected for is NOT the same reasons Democrats got elected in 2006, nor was it the same way. MODERATE democrats were elected in 2006 to give them their majority, primarily due to the war. In 2010 CONSERVATIVe republicans were elected to give them the majority, primarily due to economic and governmental issues.
If the republicans over reach and think this was a referendum on conservatism as a whole and start pushing massive Defense and Social conservative issues as their focus then yes, they're doomed for misreading the message. Similarly however if republicans read this as the country wanting them to be "moderate" and to "compromise" to help the Democratic President pass what he wants then they're ALSO misreading the message.