2. Elizabeth Warren: The liberal rock-star senator-elect from Massachusetts has the hopes of a movement riding on her shoulders as she prepares to move into the Capitol. …

But if Warren wants to be a player, she’ll shun the limelight and put her nose to the grindstone, Senate veterans say. And those expecting her to shake up the institution are sure to be disappointed. “I understand my friends on the let have some high hopes that senator-elect Elizabeth Warren is going to come in and immediately change the place,” said Jim Manley, a former longtime aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid and self-described institutionalist. “The fact is, that’s not going to happen. The fact is, the Senate is much larger than any one individual. … A freshman on the banking committee is on the end of the dais, the last one to speak, the last to question the witnesses. …

3. Filibuster reform: After years resisting the idea, Reid now says he supports making changes to the Senate rules, which have increasingly been used as a tool of universal obstruction by the minority. (Read David Graham’s excellent primer on filibuster reform here.) This has the left, for whom ending the filibuster is a cherished priority, very excited. But “ending the filibuster” is a pipe dream — any changes that do get made are likely to be minor; the leading candidate is ending procedural filibusters on “motions to proceed,” while continuing to allow them on other votes. And while Reid is clearly on board with changing the rules in theory, there’s another big question: Would he go as far as to try to change the rules with a simple majority vote on the first day of the Senate session in January, a constitutionally questionable step opponents have called the “nuclear option”? Or is he only willing to try to get it done with 67 votes under normal circumstances? Getting 67 votes for anything controversial in the Senate is a heavy lift.