I have a post up over at Plum Line talking about the likely next steps for Senate reform, following up on a must-read post, for those interested in the top, from Greg Koger over at the Monkey Cage. Senate reform junkies should also definitely read Steven Smith's recent comments about the Reid-McConnell deal and the demise of Opening Day reforms.
Briefly, my sense of things is that the 60-vote Senate is unstable, and that we'll get eventually get one of two things: either a House-like majority party rule, or some sort of revisions that retain influence for individual Senators and the minority party, but also give intense majorities a better chance to achieve their goals. Regular readers know that my preference is for the latter, but either way, I'm still very much convinced that the current situation won't hold long.
I should add one thing, although I've said this before: when change comes, it's most likely because a frustrated majority either acts unilaterally or convinces the minority to cut a deal lest they do so. That's a lot more likely to happen at least when the Senate and the presidency are in the same partisan hands, but especially during a sustained period of unified government. I've always thought that Ezra Klein's preference for time-delayed reform, in which everyone would agree to a new system but with a start date far enough into the future that no one would know which party would benefit, is just a non-starter. Change will come when the majority believes that it just can't live with the status quo, and when that happens they won't want to wait. On the other hand, it is helpful, I believe, for those who support a strong and independent Senate to work out some viable options now -- especially for those who don't want to see simple majority-party rule there.