>> With Democrats now looking ahead to governing with their majorities, what will it take to turn pent up priorities into law?

We're joined by UW La Crosse political science professor Anthony Chergosky.

And professor, thanks a lot for being here.

>> Thank you.

>> So we heard the broad brush of kind of what the new Democratic majority would like to do going forward, but what kind of discipline will Democrats have to have to effectuate their policy priorities?

>> They are going to need discipline because although they have majorities, they do not have massive majorities.

The better than expected outcomes for Democrats in state legislative races gave them a little bit of a cushion in both the state Senate and state Assembly, but not a lot of cushion.

And that means that party unity will be key for Democrats as they try to advance their policy agenda.

>> So we've seen at the national level that notwithstanding initial messaging from President Trump that he would like to work with Democrats or could work with Democrats, his actions seemed to belie that in the days following Election Day.

What can voters expect coming out of Washington?

Do you suppose?

>> I think voters are going to see gridlock and brinksmanship in Washington.

And we have seen both sides buckle down for a contentious final two years of the Trump administration with Trump, for example, appointing Stephen Miller as his chief of staff is a clear sign that he is preparing for battle with Democrats and for their part, Democrats are prepared to use the oversight power of Congress to call attention to what they perceive as the excesses and corruption of the Trump administration.

So I would expect lots of gridlock and partisanship in Washington.

>> In your neck of the woods in the Third Congressional District of Congressman Derrick Van Orden, who lost the election to Democrat Rebecca Cooke, has already filed to run again in two years.

What do you make of that?

>> I think it's a signal to the party that he intends to be a candidate and wants to be the party's nominee.

That type of early signal can be very valuable to the party, because it could dissuade other Republicans in western Wisconsin from launching a campaign.

I'm not surprised that we're going to see a rematch, because we've already seen Cooke versus Van Orden twice now, so why not a third time?

But there is that question about what this district is going to look like.

And if Democrats in the legislature are going to redraw it.

>> Yeah, that that's a big point there at the state legislature.

How weird do you think it will be for Republicans not to be led by Robin Vos?

>> It's going to be a big change because we're seeing all kinds of leadership turnover in the Capitol.

It means that lots of people are going to be playing roles that they are not used to be playing.

For Democrats being the majority party, setting the agenda and having to maintain unity to pass legislation, determining priorities and turning those broad visions that they have into concrete policies for Republicans.

They find themselves in the unusual position of being in the minority party.

And believe me, that could be a harsh reality for them.

It is a rather miserable experience to be the minority party.

So both parts of the Capitol, both parties, are going to be in a much different situation than they are used to being in.

>> So there is a budget surplus, as we know, in Wisconsin, and that long wish list for Democrats.

How delicious are the possibilities for Democrats with that surplus?

>> Oh, enormously.

Fred, when we think back about the last time that Democrats had a trifecta, it was the final years of Jim Doyle's administration.

And that came right in the heart of the financial crisis.

That was a miserable time to be the majority party or to be anyone in state government because of the horrific budget problems that the financial crisis brought with it.

Now, it's a completely different picture with a budget surplus rather than a budget deficit.

It means that Democrats have some wiggle room when it comes to new spending and new policies that they might pass.

And with 16 years in the minority party, believe me, there's some pent up demand among Democratic Party voters and Democratic Party constituencies for new policies.

And so that surplus is absolutely crucial to Democrats in the legislature.

>> But also, what kind of caution should they be expected to exercise with that surplus and their pent up demand?

>> Yeah, not going too far with the budget surplus so as to lead to a deficit going forward.

Not going too far with how that money is spent.

I think that there's going to be pressure in both directions, pressure to use the surplus responsibly, but also pressure to take advantage of what is a once in a generation opportunity for Democrats.

Not only do they have majority control, but they've got that big surplus, and I'm sure they're going to go they're going to want to swing for the fences.

When it comes to this budget process and their broader policy agenda.

>> Speaking of swinging for the fences, the state Supreme Court has accepted an act ten lawsuit, and Democrats are now looking to kind of seal the fate of act ten that stripped most government employees of union protections.

But I have this question for you.

Do you think the legislature could kind of create a hybrid, keeping the employee contributions?

But restoring union rights?

>> It speaks to the dilemma that Democrats have, not just with unions and act ten, but in a lot of situations, Fred, they agree on the principle, but the devil is in the details.

Democrats across the board agree on repealing act ten and repealing right to work.

But what does that look like in practice?

And what if the Supreme Court does it for them?

So the politics surrounding act ten and organized labor are going to be fascinating to watch, because you've got Democrats trying to figure out what a post act ten Wisconsin looks like.

And oh yeah, you've got the Supreme Court that might take care of it before the legislature even gets to it.

>> All right.

Anthony Chergosky, thanks very much.

>> Thank you.