Not since 1954 has the Republican Party controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the White House, Rep. Joseph W. Martin of Massachusetts was Speaker of the House and California Sen. William F. Knowland was Senate Majority Leader.

It is a little easier for the Democrats to recall the trifecta--they need only look back to 1994.

But whether it be six or 46 years, both parties have the legitimate opportunity to seize control and hold a full house by winning the House, Senate and White House.

For the Republicans, they will have to hold onto slim majorities in the House and Senate and hope Texas Gov. George W. Bush can pull out a tight race against Vice President Al Gore '69.

But the Democrats have been plotting to win back the House since the Gingrich revolution, and hope that a strong turnout from the Democratic base will carry Gore and Congressional candidates to victory.

While chances are that neither party will complete a full sweep, early predictions have only come to one concrete consensus--today will likely mark the closest election in nearly half a century.

Supreme Court Roulette

At the presidential level, the 2000 elections run much deeper than mere party lines. The future of the Supreme Court, foreign policy and federal power also hinge on today's winner.

With the precarious ideological balance in the Supreme Court, the next president may very well decide the fate of major issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun-control laws in the event of a court vacancy.

With three judges high on the age-ladder, a seat or two may open up in the very near future.

Should Gore prevail, he would certainly seize the opportunity to appoint another liberal justice along the lines of his favorite model, the late Thurgood Marshall.

But Bush has praised the decisions of Court justice is Antonin Scalia, the arch-conservative who has professed a strict Constitutional interpretation.

Bush's words seem to indicate he would appoint another conservative to the bench, which opponents fear could lead to a reversal of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion case. Other cases which the court might consider would address divisive issues from affirmative action programs to gay rights to school prayer.

Beyond the major issues, however, the actual role of the court would vary significantly under either Bush or Gore.

"Bush is a strict constructionalist who favors a limited role for courts in general," said Robert Porter '02, chair of the Harvard Students for Bush. "Gore, on the other hand, advocates judicial activism and stresses the importance of the court's involvement."

The Vision Thing

There is a definite contrast in style between Vice-President Gore and Governor Bush from domestic policy to foreign issues, expressing their differing political beliefs.

"More than any election since 1964, the two major candidates believe in very different views of the government's role," wrote Martin A. Linsky, lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government, in an e-mail message.

Gore favors a strong federal government and strongly backs national agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department.

Bush looks to place more power in the hands of the individual states, particularly on environmental and educational issues.

On the issue of foreign policy, Bush and Gore vary greatly in philosophy.

Bush generally takes a relatively isolationist stance, questioning the need to maintain peacekeeping forces in Bosnia or allocate funds overseas to address global concerns.

Gore would probably continue or even increase America's fiscal and military involvement around the world, favoring humanitarian and environmental concerns abroad.

But despite these fundamental differences, both candidates are far from ideologues--they hold different ideals, but both can compromise.

"Both Gore and Bush seem pragmatic and not dogmatic in their approaches to life and politics," Linsky wrote. "I assume that whoever is elected would govern from the middle and compromise to make progress."

The Numbers Game

No matter which candidate gets to measure the drapes in the Oval Office next year, Congress will still have a huge say in what policy actually can become law.

Both parties are gunning to be the majority party in the Senate, and as the majority party the Republicans obviously have the most to lose.

Beyond the voting supremacy of a Senate majority, there are other crucial factors. The majority controls the committee chairs, giving it a powerful say on what bills make it to the floor, and controls presidential appointment confirmation hearings.

"A President Bush will not be able to slam right wing ideological judges down the throat of a closely-divided Senate," Linsky wrote.

Currently, the GOP has a 54-46 majority in the Senate, but this majority rests on tenuous ground. Under any scenario, the Democrats need a net gain of five seats to take control of the Senate.

If Gore were elected, the Democrats would have control of an evenly-divided Senate, but to get to 50-50 (apparently a net gain of four seats) the Democrats would actually need to win an extra seat because Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's (D-Conn.) replacement would be chosen by Connecticut's Republican governor.

With a Bush presidency, Democratic control of the Senate would require an outright majority, necessitating a net gain of five seats.

In this cycle, 34 states are holding Senate elections--15 seats are currently Democratic, while 19 are currently Republican. Of the GOP seats, 13 are considered likely victories as opposed to 10 for the Democrats.

The GOP seems poised to win the Nevada seat of retiring Democrat Richard Bryan, while the Florida seat being vacated by popular Republican Connie Mack will most likely go to Democratic candidate Bill Nelson. This means that Democrats need to win eight of nine races, an unlikely outcome, but not an impossibility.

Even if they hold the majority after this election, the Republicans face a legitimate challenge in 2002 with 20 seats up as opposed to only 13 for Democrats.

In addition, the health of Republican Senators Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Jesse Helms of North Carolina is questionable, and their departures would most likely result in Democratic Senators appointed by the Democratic governors in their respective states. Even if the Democrats only pick up one or two seats, they could be on their way to a majority in 2002.

The Senate From Sea to Shining Sea

The most nationally publicized race has been the competition to fill the New York seat formerly held by Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rep. Rick Lazio (R-N.Y.) have been engaged in a cutthroat race, and for the moment it appears Clinton has a slight edge in the polls.

But the outcome will certainly hinge on voter turnout--essentially whether the traditional Democratic base can outnumber Clinton's passionate opposition.

But the Missouri race is now anything but normal. Immediately after Democratic candidate Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash, it appeared that the party's Senate hopes had been severely diminished.

But since the Democratic governor has promised to appoint Carnahan's widow, it now appears possible that the deceased candidate could beat Republican incumbent John Ashcroft, who has had difficulty campaigning against Carnahan's memory.

Virginia is a crucial race for both the Democrats and the Republicans. GOP candidate George Allen leads incumbent Sen. Chuck Robb in the polls, but the polls have vacillated between the two candidates in the last few days.

In New Jersey, Democratic candidate Jon Corzine has been unable to bury his opponent despite spending $63 million of his own money on his campaign. Nonetheless, it appears likely that he will emerge victorious and could have a positive impact on the Democrat's attempt to win back the House.

Corzine is spending almost $2 million in order to maximize Democratic turnout by hiring workers to canvass the state on election day, which will certainly aid all the Democratic candidates on the state ticket.

Republican incumbents are also in trouble in Minnesota, Michigan, Montana and Delaware, although Slade Gorton appears to be hanging on in Washington State.

House Party?

In the House of Representatives, majority control is totally up for grabs, and many closely contested races have heightened the importance of each congressional district. The Democrats need only win over eight seats to undo the current 13-seat Republican advantage.

Republicans will probably lose a few seats but may still maintain a slim majority. If elected, Bush would then have an easier time pushing legislation through the House.

A Democratic House would almost ensure divided government for the next four years, with the Senate most likely staying Republican.

Should the GOP emerge victorious on all three fronts, however, it will have a clear mandate for change--and no excuses.

"If Republicans gain control in Washington, there will be far more pressure for them to actually do something with it," Porter said. "They have to produce."

Ballot Ballet

This year's ballot initiatives serve the unique role of being both provincial and national in scope. Although initiatives only directly affect members of a given state, they often take on national issues that Washington legislators have avoided.

"People turn to the initiative process to put pressure on Congress to act," says M. Dane Waters, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute. Waters points to women's suffrage which was initially imposed by ballot initiatives.

In this election cycle, there are 204 ballot initiatives up for consideration in 42 states, an average of about five per state.

Although this year does not have the highest number of ballot initiatives, the scope and importance of issues is unprecedented. Everything from marijuana legalization to gay marriage to tax reform is being addressed.

"Initiatives will set the tone for the next two to four years," Waters says.

Ballot initiatives could also have an impact on close national races by affecting voter turnout and composition.

According to Waters, the voter turnout in states with initiatives is three to seven percent higher than those without. He says that this difference can be attributed to voters feeling that they are voting for direct results, not just promises. The Republican governor of Michigan attempted to keep a school voucher initiative off the ballot because he feared that it would cause more Democrats to vote.

Gubernatorial Races

With so much stress being placed on local politics this year, the gubernatorial races cannot be overlooked, either.

Eleven seats hang in the balance, with Republicans already holding a 30 to 18 edge. While Democrats have no hope of reversing those numbers, they do have the opportunity to cut into their deficit and could potentially pick up two to three spots.

Nationally, the gubernatorial races will not make much difference unless Bush follows through with his promise to work more closely with state officials while in office.