Someone just emailed me to tell me that dems have the majority. Yes, they do have a majority, but they would need to get the 2/3 vote and they don't have that. What I was saying is that there won't be a clear cut path for getting things passed without opposition.

Scargo, a 2/3 vote is only required to override a veto from the president. 60 votes in the senate would have been a filibuster-proof majority (60 votes are needed to end a filibuster). For most, if not all, other votes only a majority of votes are needed for something to pass.

Since they do not have the 60 democratic senators they would need to ensure ending fillibusters, (which I don't like no matter which side is doing it) the result will be an attempt to encourage republicans to vote in their favor in order to end fillibusters. However, I believe it will be somewhat difficult to do, unless the fillibuster is an obvious reduculous one.
Balance of power is always good. Checks and balances are needed in order to ensure that all voices are heard, and that people stay above board.

If they had the 60, then they would be able to railraod through the ideals of Pelosi, and Reed. They both want to limit free speech, and remove the right to bear arms.

My main concern about Obama winning is giving these two a blank check!