Bruce Ackerman wants an end to filibusters on executive branch nominees:

The way the Senate deals with executive branch nominees is a scandal. If a single senator issues a "hold" on a nominee, the filibuster rules require 60 senators, and lengthy floor debate, to overcome his or her objection. Senators regularly use holds as bargaining chips to force administration cave-ins to their special-interest demands. For example, Sen. Richard Shelby held up 70 Obama nominations to obtain special funding for a couple of home-state projects.

Every returning Democratic Senator has signed on to a letter in support of filibuster reform:

While it does not urge a specific solution, Democrats said it demonstrates increased backing in the majority for a proposal, championed by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and others, weaken the minority’s ability to tie the Senate calendar into parliamentary knots.

Would you believe that anti-lobbyist candidates have transformed, like caterpillars into butterflies, and arrived in Washington to hire lobbyists to work for them? The hypocrisy play here is obvious, but of course, but members of Congress need to find people to help them influence the legislative process, and that's what lobbyists do for a living. And lobbyist PR people pointing out that public advocates are lobbyists, too, isn't off the mark. The problem isn't lobbyists themselves, but the structure they work in -- the lack of transparency around who's lobbying for whom and the amount of money lobbyists spend that isn't properly documented.

I'm not sure that Republicans will have any success at this:

With a big new majority in the House, Republicans will have little trouble passing whatever they want – including a full repeal of the health care reform law. But Republicans don't have a majority in the Senate, so even modest changes to the law will require the help of centrist Democrats – or at least scared ones.

Manchin is the Republicans' top target – because he campaigned against part of the law, and because he'll have to face the voters again in 2012 if he wants to serve a full term.

Matthew Yglesias makes his official election predictions:

This reversion to a balance of political power that leaves Democrats in a stronger position than they were as recently as the 2005-2008 period will be treated by the press as a world-historical shift in favor of the right. Most press figures will probably explicitly note that election results are invariably over-interpreted and then proceed to over-interpret again, arguing that this time it’s different.