There are two places where the gang plays. One is on withholding enough votes so that the 60 vote cloture hurdle is not crossed, the other is to obtain a 50 vote agreement that cloture abuse in the context of nominations is contrary to the balance of powers implied by the Constitution.
Those waypoints are couched in the phrase "extraordinary circumstance," coined by the gang of 14. Once each player in the gang renders an opinion as to whether or not Alito is within the "extraordinary circumstance" sphere, the playout of the nomination is clarified.
I suspect today's meeting of the gang of 14 will NOT add clarity. THey will emerge with the "news" that each of them is free to decide "extraordinary circumstance" on his or her own. Dewine and Graham have consistently, since May, held that "extraordinary circumstance" represents a nomination that is beyond the pale, I see that as a judge that the Senator would vote to impeach - better to nip it in the bud than admit the judge to the office.
Salazar is making noises that Alito may represent extraordinary circunmstances, because he may be an ideologue. I am pretty sure that Snowe and Collins will caucus with the DEMs on this - so the situation is similar to the Circuit Court impasse of May, except the stakes are higher. The DEMs would be able to sustain refusal to vote on the nominee - it's too visible. The public understands that fairness requires the nominee to be given an up or down vote.
I don't think Salazar will do much more than make noises if he has any interest at all in being reelected.
My favorite remark that I've seen regarding Salazar appeared in the local paper a while back. In a letter to the editor, a gentleman opined, regarding Salazar's discussions with Roberts, that John Roberts explaining constitutional law to Ken Salazar would make as much sense as Stephen Hawking explaining advanced physics to his Labrador retriever.
Almost had a coffee on the newspaper episode there.