The United States Senate is arguably the greatest deliberative legislative body in modern history. Of course I am something of a Senate junkie, so I'm biased, but it's where American consensus is formed and where small states like Wyoming and Delaware can stand tall as equals with behemoths like Texas and California. "Robert's Rules of Order" looks like a quaint parliamentary pamphlet compared to the massive list of Senate rules, and a Senator can master the nuances of those rules over time, often to great advantage. It's a stately and regal body compared to the House, which is much more like the "Wild West." Members of the House stand for reelection every two years, resulting in more dramatic swings in public opinion. The Senate is the great "cooling saucer" of the United States political system. It forces us to think twice, and then three times, before making changes.

So every two years (since 1994) I have analyzed and handicapped all of the Senate races. If you stick to facts and keep your ears to the ground, it's not too difficult to get these things right. The truth is that almost all of the close races tend to tilt in one direction during each cycle, and we continue a great sorting of politics where Senate elections now primarily align with Presidential electoral results. Senate races have taken on increased importance because recently some of the rules that have been around for over 200 years were eliminated, making the American people more vulnerable to unexpected changes. Historically it has always taken a super majority to change existing Senate rules, but in 2013 the majority party used something called the "nuclear option" which basically says that they can change the rules of the game anytime that they want with only 51 votes, instead of the typical two-thirds vote. The specific rule that was eliminated was the right of the minority party to filibuster executive branch nominations during their constitutionally mandated role of "advise and consent." That action was extremely dangerous, because technically we now have no protection against any President who might nominate rogues, scoundrels, or people who have donated to his or her political campaign. Ambassadorships have always been for sale, often doled out to major donors, but if people are able to start to purchase judgeships the same way then that's a threat to the integrity and independence of our judicial system. And, frankly, if one political party can change the rules this way then there is nothing to stop them from changing *any* rules on their own, ever. In fact, the other party changed the rules later to include Supreme Court justices, and that also had a huge impact. This deterioration in respect for the minority in the Senate should be of major concern to everyone, without regard to where you happen to stand on the political spectrum.