ShareThis Page
Scott Rasmussen: The election’s over — now what? |

Scott Rasmussen: The election’s over — now what?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

It was almost unsettling to wake up the morning after the election and realize it turned out pretty much as we expected. There were, of course, some individual surprises, but nothing on the seismic shock scale of 2016.

For months, it had been expected that Democrats would win a modest House majority, and they did. The popular vote margin for the Democrats was just about right where the Generic Congressional Ballot projected it to be (and also about the same as the RealClearPolitics average of all election polls).

In the Senate, it had long been recognized that the Republicans were likely to gain a few seats, and they did. In the campaign’s final days, there were five or six very close races where either candidate could win. But while Democrats could have won any of those individual races, the GOP was favored to win most of them. That’s just what happened.

So now that we got the election we expected, where do we go from here?

The conventional wisdom suggests gridlock is coming. In that view, there’s no way a Nancy Pelosi-led House will forge significant bipartisan deals with a Mitch McConnell-led Senate and President Donald Trump.

The likelihood of gridlock is very high, but I’m not sure how much it matters. Over the past two years, the Republican-led House also struggled to reach agreement with the Senate and the president. Other than the tax cut and repeal of the Obamacare mandate, little was accomplished in the legislative arena.

But the lack of legislation does not mean a lack of impact. The Trump administration did take some modest steps to reduce the regulatory burden. That accomplishment seems especially significant because it followed decades of enormous regulatory growth.

The deregulatory effort is almost certain to continue. Among other things, there will be an ongoing effort to give Americans a greater degree of control over the health insurance they purchase. Lower-cost insurance that doesn’t cover every imaginable procedure may be frowned upon by bureaucrats in Washington, but they are welcomed by millions who have to buy their own insurance.

Additionally, with an increased Senate majority, the president will find it easier to confirm judges who are skeptical of an all-powerful federal government. That’s especially true because the Republican Senate victories in 2018 make them early favorites to retain control of the Senate in 2020. If there is another Supreme Court nomination in the coming years, the confirmation will be a lot smoother with a bigger Republican majority.

For their part, the Democrats are likely to launch many investigations of the president. But they will feel an ongoing tension between a progressive base demanding impeachment and more moderate Democrats fearful of offending centrist voters. That tension will carry over to issues like health care, where progressives dream of banning private insurance companies and forcing all Americans into a government-run health care system. The moderates recognize that such a plan is not popular with the rest of the country.

So, over the next two years, we’re likely to experience gridlock. But that doesn’t mean a lack of action. Instead, we’ll see deregulation and judicial appointments from Republicans. And Democrats will try to resolve their party’s inner tension before the 2020 presidential election.

Scott Rasmussen is the publisher of and author of “The Sun Is Still Rising: Politics Has Failed but America Will Not.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.