On virtually every level of government, there’s a tendency by politicians to believe their electoral victories are a sweeping endorsement of their most partisan and unabashedly controversial policy preferences. 

Generally speaking, it’s no such thing. 

On the national level, there are already plenty of signs Republicans are beginning to overplay their hand. A few of President-elect Donald Trump’s more bizarre cabinet picks, for example, hardly give the impression his administration will take major efforts to govern from the middle — and Republicans in the House and Senate are already putting together their ambitious agenda with little regard to just how limited and fragile their majorities actually are.  

To be sure, some of this is to be expected. After all, they won the election. Aren’t they entitled to push their priorities aggressively?

The problem for Republicans is that the “red wave” that gave them a trifecta in national government is hardly the result of a Reaganesque mandate from the masses — it’s largely the result of an indomitably unlikeable incumbent Democratic administration failing to attract enough voters to remain in the game. 

In other words, voters have trepidatiously granted Republicans an opportunity to prove themselves better than their political rivals. That opportunity, however, isn’t going to last long if tariffs force prices to skyrocket, labor markets are decimated by mass deportations or lawmakers are otherwise consumed with controversial pet projects. 

As likely as it is that national Republicans will overestimate their electoral mandate, it seems just as likely that Nevada Democrats in Carson City will do the same. While Democrats failed to achieve a supermajority in the state Legislature — despite a highly favorable redrawing of legislative districts — they still hold a sizable majority in both the Assembly and Senate. 

Last legislative session demonstrated that finding middle ground between a deeply blue Legislature and a Republican governor wasn’t exactly easy. In fact, the very concept of “compromise” was seemingly absent throughout much of last year’s legislative process — culminating in a record number of gubernatorial vetoes and Democrats scuttling many of Gov. Joe Lombardo’s major priorities. 

With the state budget now larger than anticipated, one would imagine there could be plenty of opportunity to fund Democratic policy proposals while still indulging at least some Republican priorities at the same time — provided leaders actually decide to flirt with the idea of negotiating in good faith. 

Considering the financial woes of the state’s largest school district following a “historic” increase in statewide funding, for example, education is going to be a major topic yet again. Democrats will likely push for additional funding to effect new reforms in public education. Republicans, meanwhile, will certainly reprise their usual call for greater educational choice programs. 

Why should a compromise that includes both policy preferences be considered verboten by Democratic leadership? Given the overwhelming support voters have shown for increased funding and expanding choice programs, an “all-of-the-above” approach would seem like a logical compromise in a divided government.  

However, judging by the implacable opposition Democrats have shown against any form of “school choice,” such moderation might not be in the DNA of the current majority leadership. Indeed, 2025 will likely be every bit as contentious, gridlocked and uncommunicative as the last session — with Democrats sending Gov. Lombardo plenty more patently vetoable bills and blocking many of his key objectives.

In the next election cycle, we’ll find out what that sort of stalemate means for the electability of those in charge — in much the same way midterms will reflect just how far afield from mainstream opinion Republicans might wander on the national level. 

Throughout our political ecosystem, the politicos and electeds in power rarely seem interested in reckoning with the fact that pandering to their party’s base simply isn’t the same thing as governing in a broadly representative manner. With the exception of a few deep-blue or heavily red jurisdictions, we’re a nation full of voters who are increasingly demonstrating mixed nonpartisan attitudes — especially in Nevada, where we still have a sizeable Democratic legislative majority, a Republican governor and voters just sent Democrats back to Washington while swinging red on the presidential ticket. 

Such mixed election results indicate neither political tribe has been given an overwhelming democratic mandate by voters to shove their agenda down the throats of everyone else. Nonetheless, seeking out middle ground that represents our complex and independent electorate is rarely prioritized over toeing the party line for those who win elections.   

In other words, despite the split government in Nevada and extremely narrow majorities in Washington, D.C., don’t expect any meaningful moderation among the diehard partisan stalwarts running either major party. Voters should expect plenty of posturing from Democrats in the state’s legislative building next year and plenty of Trumpian policy pursuits emanating from the nation’s capital — nuanced and diverse voter preferences be damned.  

And while that’s likely to incite glee among the loyalists and leaders who live deeply ensconced in either party’s political bubble, it will only cause even more discontent and division among the rest of us. 

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.