The election isn’t even over, and some people are already trying to lower expectations. With Democrats favored to win back the House, the familiar warnings are already coming: Those are real obstacles. But some naysayers go further: Since Democrats may not be able to force the administration to cooperate or enact their agenda, they should be wary of investigating it. Voters want their lives to get better, the argument goes, not another “accountability tour.”In other words, holding the administration accountable for its actions over the past two years won’t work — and Democrats should resign themselves to being powerless before they’ve even taken control. Come on now. If this is how you approach politics, you should find another line of work.

Back in April, I wrote that Democrats needed to plan what they would do with power if voters gave it back to them. A victory would come with the expectation that they could improve people’s lives. If voters give them the House, Democrats will have to show what they can accomplish with it.

That work would test Hakeem Jeffries as speaker, along with the progressives promising a different approach and the moderates whose victories could make a majority possible. The disagreements that animated contentious primaries would move into caucus meetings, committee rooms and negotiations over which bills get a vote.

For progressives who win seats, especially those who defeated Democratic incumbents, the challenge will be turning activism and attention into results: persuading colleagues, passing bills and delivering on promises. Can they build support beyond those who already agree with them — and show what withholding a vote achieves?

Moderates would have something to prove too. Winning a Republican-held district can change who controls the House. Denise Powell in Nebraska, Cait Conley in New York and Elaine Luria in Virginia are competing for voters who may not support every position of the national Democratic Party. Their priorities would shape what Jeffries could pass.

Getting more than 200 lawmakers to agree would be difficult, but hardly impossible. Democrats have run on similar agendas because people face similar problems: Housing and healthcare cost too much, and families are struggling to cover the bills. Members may disagree on policy, but they would arrive with plenty of common ground.

The size of the majority would matter. A narrow margin could give a handful of members substantial influence over the speaker’s election, the rules of the House and whether a bill passes. A larger majority would give Jeffries more room to lose votes and still act. Either way, members would have to decide what to demand and what an agreement is worth.

The Congressional Black Caucus would have a particular opportunity. Its members include progressives, moderates, senior lawmakers and members of leadership. The CBC has the votes, experience and relationships to help set the agenda and ensure its communities see results. That would require agreement within the CBC, just as passing bills would require agreement across the broader caucus. Voters would experience what Congress does and fails to do — not separate results from each faction.

One immediate test would be whether Democrats can advance an economic agenda while holding the administration accountable — and explain both without accepting the premise that one undermines the other.

Democrats campaigned on fighting corruption. Investigating it is part of what they promised. Voters asking for help with their bills have also demanded answers about officials enriching themselves, abusing their authority and protecting the powerful. While families struggle to pay for housing and healthcare, the administration has pursued policies that benefit the wealthy and itself. Democrats would have to show who is making those decisions, who benefits and how the choices affect people’s lives. It takes selective listening to hear voters’ economic concerns and dismiss their demands for accountability.

Jeffries, Jamie Raskin and Robert Garcia have discussed the work ahead. If Democrats win the House, Raskin and Garcia would be in line to lead the Judiciary and Oversight committees, respectively. They have laid groundwork for investigations; they would have to decide which comes first, what the evidence supports and whether changes in the law could prevent the wrongdoing they uncover.

Republicans will call hearings distractions and investigations retaliation. Some commentators will repeat those descriptions as though oversight becomes illegitimate when the administration objects. Democrats would have to explain what they are investigating, what they have established and why it matters while continuing the legislative work voters expect. They would have to walk and chew gum. That is a demanding assignment, but it is also the job.

Trump’s resistance would complicate that work, but it cannot become an excuse for never trying. Democrats have called for a special counsel to investigate the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files. House Democrats cannot appoint one; the Justice Department would have to act. But a public record could matter, and evidence and bipartisan pressure could change the department’s calculation. Perhaps the attorney general refuses. Perhaps sustained pressure produces movement. Neither possibility is tested if Democrats decide beforehand that the effort is pointless.

The same goes for legislation. The bipartisan housing package became law this summer without Trump’s signature. Legislators negotiated an agreement, persuaded enough colleagues to support it and put the bill on his desk. Trump could oppose a proposal and later decide he wants credit for its success. His political calculations create possibilities worth testing.

“Get caught trying” is useful here, provided it means doing the legislative work, building support and making it harder for the administration to say no. A news conference alone will not improve anyone’s life. Neither will a detailed explanation of why nothing could ever have worked.

A Democratic victory would bring another challenge: protecting the power voters had just given them. In Mississippi, Republicans are discussing a new congressional map that could push out Bennie Thompson, the state’s only Black member of Congress. In North Carolina, they redrew Don Davis’ district to help defeat him; if he wins, they could try again. Mississippi Republicans are also seeking to redraw state legislative maps after Democrats flipped three Senate seats and broke their supermajority.

Voters are supposed to choose their representatives. Republicans are changing the maps so representatives can choose their voters. The CBC can make protecting that right a priority for the entire Democratic caucus, using its votes, seniority and committee leadership to confront efforts to weaken Black political representation.

That, too, is part of using a majority: defending the choices voters made. Trump would try to obstruct a Democratic House. Treating that as proof that Democrats cannot accomplish anything would give him a victory he has not earned.

Democrats have spent this campaign asking voters to give them the House. If voters do their part, they are entitled to more than an explanation of why the president makes everything difficult. They already know that. It is one of the reasons they would elect a Democratic majority.

For more thought-provoking insights from Michael Steele, Symone Sanders Townsend and Luke Russert, watch “The Weeknight” every Monday-Friday at 7 p.m. ET on MS NOW, and check out Symone’s podcast with Eugene Daniels, “Clock It.”