What could a Republican-controlled Senate mean for the country?

On the eve of midterm elections, forecasters are trying to see a pattern in close contests. Republicans have many roads to a Senate majority. In their final arguments, Democrats and Republicans are telling crowds a change in Senate management will have serious consequences. Though they mean entirely different things when they say it, it's one of the few things the two parties agree on: a shift to a Republican Senate would be a big deal.

If control of the Senate changes, what does that mean for the direction of the country's policies?

How will the president have to pivot? 

Are the voters going to get what they want?

We consulted a panel of experts for the Inside Story.

Inside Story: What are Republicans likely to do if they get the majority?

Waldo McMillan: First, they are going to look at how it is going to function as it relates to Senate rules. [Likely Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell has castigated my former boss [Sen. Harry Reid] about his decision to make the threshold for federal nominees a 51-vote threshold. It will be interesting to see if he keeps it in place or goes back to the old threshold. Given how close the numbers will be — if it is a GOP majority, it’ll be only [by] a two- to three-vote [margin] — it is likely he will go back to a 60-vote majority. It gives him more leverage when negotiating with the White House on nominees they do not like. 

Are there any policy matters other than nominees where it is likely that Barack Obama's administration will be forced to compromise?

By the end of the first quarter, we have another fiscal cliff because of the debt ceiling being up for renewal. You will see Republicans look to make spending a very big issue in the new Congress. It will be the first big test of McConnell in his dealings with the White House. If the Republican Party holds both chambers, they will hold the line on providing new revenue. From my perspective, that is the only note they really sing.

Will a GOP Senate strike a grand bargain?

It is too early to tell. We could not get a grand bargain when President Obama had as much leverage as he ever was going to have in 2012. It will be interesting to see what margins will be if there is a Republican majority. It will also remain to be seen what gets done in light of the very conservative members of the caucus. I wouldn’t be surprised if they try something. If they do not, it puts them at risk in 2016, particularly given the number of seats they are defending.

What will Republicans do if they win control of the Senate?

G. WIlliam Hoagland: No. 1, it is not clear when we will know the outcome of the Senate. Assuming, as you say, the Republicans take back control, it won't be by much. It will either be by one or two votes. And there is also the possibility of a tie, which would throw a lot of power to the vice president. It would also put a lot of pressure on independents — Angus King, or if it should happen, [Greg] Orman. There will be an effort to repay Republicans with some votes that they were denied under Mr. Reid. There will be some votes on the Keystone pipeline and some votes to show Republicans are not just the party of no, some votes on which there might be bipartisan support, such as the modification of the health care medical device tax. Overall, you can expect Republicans, after some initial playing to the base … to actually start to reach out for areas of bipartisanship. At the end of the day, they want to show that they can govern and move legislation to the benefit of the country. I would expect that to include such things as tax and regulatory reform. None of this will be easy.

What perks does being in the majority offer?

First, and most obvious, is control of the committees and their chairmanships. The structure of those committees and committee staffs is entrusted to the majority. There are other minor things like office locations and hideaways, which are scarce as chicken’s teeth, and they are passed on to the majority leader. The majority part being in control means setting the agenda and what can be considered in the Senate floor for final consideration.

What could we see happen on the federal bench? Will Republicans undo the rule change allowing a simple majority for confirming federal nominations?

I believe that to the extent that Republicans opposed the change and considered it a fundamental restructuring of the rules, it would not surprise me if they decide to go back to the old rules requiring 60 votes for judicial nominations and remove it from simple majority vote.

What will the Republicans do if they get a majority in the Senate?

John Hudak: The first thing they are going to have to do is figure out what their agenda is going to have to look like. While it may seem like a straightforward proposition, given how fractured both Senate and House caucuses are and the presence of new members, understanding what the leadership can pass will be a test. It is a test for any new ruling party but especially for Speaker [of the House John] Boehner and [probable] Senate Leader McConnell. It is a version of the challenge of the past four years, only on steroids.

Do you think we are likely to see more cooperation or attempts to pass something?

Absolutely not. It will be a worse form of gridlock than we have seen. There will be more investigations of the administration, more pandering and posturing on both sides and more assertive efforts to control media. Policymaking will take a backseat to all of this. People look at the president and Congress and think it cannot get worse. It is going to get worse.

What could we see happen on the federal judiciary? Will Republicans undo the rule change allowing a simple majority for federal nominations?

Any nominations is going to be much harder for the president to get through. He will have to work more cooperatively with Senate Republicans to find acceptable nominees. That is not necessarily a bad thing if Republicans are reasonable. There is a danger of them overplaying their hand, as there is in the case of President Obama.