I adamantly disagree.
All we need is enough padding to ensure a filibuster in the senate. Having a slim majority (which I am predicting at this point) is no better than a slim minority. In fact, in some ways it may be worse because unrealistic expectation on a virtually toothless majority may follow. Democrats could filibuster, and 0bama could veto with no chance of an override.
The House, however, sets funding. With control of the House, Republicans could defund 0bama’s bankruptcy agenda. And Republicans would have the power of subpoena.
I would add one more tactic the GOP should (but probably won’t) adopt with a slim majority or minority in the Senate. Obama’s most poisonous effect on our government, in the long term, may well be his hyper-liberal court appointees. As soon as the new congress is seated, no Obama appointees should be confirmed to any court in the federal judiciary. Not. One.
Majorities are always better because you control committees, hearings and language in the laws much better.
But whatever power we have has to be exercised. letting RINOs call the shots will be self-defeating.