The morning after Election Day, there is still some uncertainty about partisan control on Capitol Hill, although, as NBC News reported, there is no doubt about which party will control the upper chamber.

As I write, the new Republican majority in the chamber will have at least 52 seats. That number could rise: Senate elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona have not yet been called. Although Democrats are likely to gain the upper hand in some of these five contests, it wouldn't surprise anyone in either party at this point if the GOP ends up with more than 52 seats when the new Congress begins in January.

What difference does it make how big the majority is? When there are 51 Republicans in the Senate, members like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine can, at least in theory, curtail some of their party's most radical instincts. For example, if there are 54 Republicans in the Senate, the far-right party can do whatever it wants.

As a legislative matter, control of the House of Representatives is obviously fundamental: a Democratic majority, not impossible, would not only be able to thwart key elements of Donald Trump's agenda, it would also be able to at least try to do so hold the elected president accountable for expected abuses.

A Republican majority in the House, meanwhile, would give the Republican Party control of all levers of federal power.

Yes, to answer the question some readers are probably asking: The filibuster rule will likely remain in place, which in turn would give the Democratic minority in the Senate some opportunities to block legislation supported by the new Trump White House.

But — and you had to know there was a “but” coming — much of what Republicans want won’t be subject to a filibuster. For example, if GOP officials control Capitol Hill, they will approve tax breaks for billionaires as part of the budget reconciliation process, which requires simple majorities in both chambers. The party could well try to undermine the Affordable Care Act in the same way.

Equally notable, the filibuster rule no longer applies to the confirmation process, meaning that no matter what happens with control of the House, Republicans will spend at least two years packing the courts with young, far-right reactionaries — during They wait early for a Supreme Court retirements.

As for the Trump administration candidates, Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida – a former Trump critic who has become a pretty pathetic Trump sycophant – appeared on CNN after the race was called and was asked whether a Republican-led Senate would be content to confirm conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to a powerful federal role.

“Well, I think the Senate is going to give great honor to a president who just won a stunning, I think a landslide victory in the Electoral College and a mandate,” Rubio responded. “He receives a government mandate. And I think presidents who have been given a mandate to govern deserve the opportunity from the Senate to surround themselves with people who will help them implement their policies.”

Aside from the obvious fact that Rubio and his Republican colleagues had a very different perspective when Barack Obama won by a much larger margin, the Floridian was essentially saying that there was a Senate run by the Republican Party would probably do it They confirm fringe radicals in positions of authority and effectively serve as a rubber stamp for Trump's decisions.

In July, The Bulwark spoke with a congressional lobbyist who said something that's been on my mind for months. “There is a big difference between 54 and 51 Republican senators,” the lobbyist said. “At 54, Ric Grenell is confirmed as foreign minister.”

Watch this area.