The election today will bring a few new faces to the United States Senate and a few more Democrats, but it takes more than that to change an institution that was designed to resist change, trends and flashes of political pique. The Republicans have held the majority in the Senate since 1994, except for a short period of time when, in 2001, Sen. Jeffords of Vermont changed parties and gave the majority to the Democrats - who promptly handed it back to the Republicans two years later.

So what happens? There are 33 Senate seats that will be decided today: 17 Democrats, 15 Republicans and 1 Independent (the aforementioned Jeffords of Vermont). A few of the Senate's characters will be retired today. Democrats are poised to take seats in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Strong Democratic contenders are challenging the GOP hold of Senate seats in Missouri, Montana, Tennessee and Virginia. And an appointed Democrat in New Jersey struggles to hold his seat against a young, charismatic Republican steeped in NJ politics. One thing is for sure. The Democrats will not win all of these seats. They will win 2 of those last 5 for sure and maybe a third. So, even if they hold New Jersey - the Republicans will maintain a narrow 51-49 majority.

Why can’t the Democrats capitalize on an unpopular war that is inextricably tied to an unpopular President and a Republican party awash in scandal? It takes more than a few key issues trending in one direction to nationalize an election. Despite the Democrats best efforts this is not a national election. Tip O’Neill said that all politics is local and you will see that on display today – in spades. Ohio and Pennsylvania, both to be lost by Republican incumbents, are not surprising states to find strong Democrats - look how close the presidential election was there in 2004. More importantly in Ohio, GOP politics has become a sewer of corruption and that, combined with an uncharismatic, unpopular incumbent will give the Democrats a sure victory in that state. Pennsylvania is a blue state with a very conservative Senator who has high negatives and who finds himself running against a moderate, pro-life Democrat who is the son of a well-liked former Governor. No national issue there either.

The majority in the Senate is important, to be sure, but it has a different significance than the majority in the House. Arcane Senate filibuster rules give the minority party a strong hand in deciding the fate of legislation - it takes 60 votes to get anything done. So the majority party sets the agenda and decides the floor schedule, but they don’t rule with the absolute authority of their House colleagues. In recent history the Republican moderates who cross over to vote with Democrats outnumber the conservative Democrats who move to the right. In practical terms this means that either there will be utter gridlock and nothing gets done - we've seen many examples of that in the last few years. Or, there is room for compromise and strong leaders on both sides of the aisle can forge consensus agreements.

And in that latter scenario is the key to Republican salvation. As much as they need a majority in the Senate, they need a strong leader who has the perspective and skills to drive a bipartisan agenda and legislate. The marriage of convenience between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives’ that was consummated in the early 1980’s is falling apart. As soon as the divorce is final, the new Senate leader can work with the fiscal conservatives and the moderates to carve out middle ground that will bring about consensus.

Later this week, we will have more on the Senate and House results, winners and losers, and the issues to watch for in the early days on the next Congressional session.