Lately, he has been devouring poll numbers, and he is not thrilled with what he sees.

He concedes Republicans will lose ground Tuesday. And he is not alone. A national discontent with GOP rule has Democrats poised to take back the House, the Senate or - conceivably - both.

"Being in the minority is really not going to be a pleasant experience," said Rep. Chris Cannon. "What you're going to have is people trying to impeach Bush and people trying to embarrass the administration. It's not going to be about making [good policy]."

Cannon, one of the managers during the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton, has never been in the minority. He has been climbing in seniority, holding a subcommittee chairmanship in this Congress.

Most pundits are predicting that Democrats will gain the 15 seats they need to win control of that chamber and a large number of Republicans not named Karl Rove are resigned to it.

That would give Democrats a majority, but barring an electoral landslide, it would be a slimmer majority than Republicans held for the past two years, countered by a Republican White House and, barring an upset or two, a slim GOP majority in the Senate.

The most logical result would be major gridlock. But there is another possibility, says Michael Lyons, a professor at Utah State University. President Bush could do what President Clinton did in 1994 after his party lost in a landslide and try to accommodate the opposition party.

"Nobody wants to complete a second term as president regarded as a failure and . . . as ineffective," Lyons says, "so I think there is fairly substantial incentive for the Bush administration to reverse course, sit down with the Democrats and try to hammer out some compromises."

If that's the path Republicans choose, it will require building relations with moderate Democrats, known as Blue Dogs.

"I think it puts Blue Dogs in a very powerful and important position," says Rep. Jim Matheson, who says the caucus is willing to work with Republicans to impose fiscal discipline, accountability and a strong defense.

If Matheson is re-elected, he becomes an important player in the Utah delegation. He likely is not senior enough to land a subcommittee chairmanship, but he is the only member with sway on Democratic leadership and committee chairmen in the House.

Democratic leaders may, however, not give Matheson as much leeway to buck the party as he has enjoyed in the past. As a vulnerable Democrat in a Republican-leaning district, he strayed from the party on several key votes. After winning convincingly in 2004 - and, if polls hold, 2006 - he may be subjected to more arm-twisting than in the past.

"The conservative wing of the Republican Party dominated the House of Representatives and, to a lesser extent, the Senate pretty much ever since the 2000 election. That period of conservative dominance is going to end, and power is going to swing back to the centrists, and Jim Matheson is one of those people," Lyons said.

Across the aisle, Bennett is confident Republicans will hang on to control of the Senate, just barely, and could see the body being split evenly down the middle, with Vice President Dick Cheney tipping the balance ever-so-slightly to the Republicans.

If he's right, Bennett will have the ear of the presumptive Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell.

There is no one in the Senate whom Bennett is closer to than the Kentucky Republican. For nearly two years, the two senators have had a deal in place where Bennett would become counsel to the majority leader, a hand-picked adviser, putting him in the inner circle of Senate leadership and in the room for every deal cut and horse trade that gets done.

And McConnell has already given Bennett the green light to use his chairmanship of the Joint Economic Committee to take another swing at one of Bennett's pet projects: overhauling Social Security.

Once a cornerstone of President Bush's agenda, it was quickly torn to shreds by Democrats and seniors groups.

Bennett proposed raising the retirement age and indexing payments based on need. He also pitched a separate plan to create private retirement accounts. Neither plan went far, but they are still tucked away in his desk drawer, and he is prepared to dust them off.

Bennett could also take McConnell's spot on the committee that sets the budget for the State Department and foreign operations, a prestigious position where he could also subtly support The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' international outreach.

Another possibility is that Bennett could end up calling the shots on the committee that controls spending on the Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service, a key panel for a state where about two-thirds of the land is owned by the federal government.

Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., the current chairman, is trailing his Democratic opponent but has closed the gap in recent days. Should Burns lose, Bennett could take his place.

"It is something I would look at, certainly, but I'd want to see what other seats might be available," Bennett said. "I'm making no commitment in any direction."

Cannon says that, with such a large federal presence in Utah, Democrats could make managing those lands more difficult and impose more restrictions on oil and gas production.

"So the West is going to have less drilling activity, and that means gas prices are going to be higher," he said.

Bennett's Washington County lands bill, which seeks to shape development in the fast-growing area, might not suffer from Democratic gains.

Democrats have typically been wary of selling federal land, and Bennett's bill would sell about 25,000 acres. But the Washington County bill is tied closely with a similar Nevada bill sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, and Matheson is the House sponsor, giving hope it would win approval in a Democratic House.

Bennett hopes not to wait that long. The measure has a hearing next week, and he says it could still pass by the end of the year.

Rep. Rob Bishop, who less than two years ago pulled something of a coup by landing a coveted spot on the influential House Rules Committee as a sophomore member, could find his tenure on the committee short-lived.

The makeup of that committee, which literally makes the rules for every piece of legislation debated in the House, is weighted heavily in favor of the party in power. There are now nine Republicans to four Democrats, and the GOP used that advantage to shut down attempts by Democrats to change legislation. If party control flips, it would appear unlikely Bishop would keep his seat. It's a situation Bishop hasn't even considered.

"You could say we don't spend too much time thinking about future hypothetical scenarios, particularly ones that have such a slim chance of coming to fruition," said Scott Parker, Bishop's chief of staff.

If a Democratic takeover does materialize, Cannon and Bishop should probably brace for a long two years. Especially in the House, the majority calls the shots, leaving the opposition to try to play stubborn defense.

"In the minority, you light a Molotov cocktail and throw it over the wall," said a lobbyist and former house staffer, "and then [you] go back to playing video games."

gehrke@sltrib.com

Public lands: Democrats may be able to slow the Bush administration's push to open public lands to oil and gas drilling, roll back some subsidies for oil companies and could seek to limit funding for oil shale research.

Defense: Hill Air Force Base is pinning its future on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but some Democrats are uneasy with the cost and schedule for the plane and the overall Pentagon budget.

Illegal immigration: House Democrats could align with Senate Republicans, the White House and House members like Rep. Chris Cannon to come to an agreement on an immigration policy that couldn't get traction with conservative House members.

Industrial loan corporations: Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who would become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has pressed for tighter regulation of ILCs, which are like banks run by major retailers. Utah is home to 33 ILCs with $120 billion in assets.

Nuclear testing: Republicans have generally backed President Bush's push to put the country in a posture where it could conduct a new nuclear test in 18 months, if necessary, and to develop a nuclear bunker-buster. Democrats have opposed both efforts and could be in a better position to block the moves.