Today’s election, widely billed as a referendum on the war in Iraq, is likely to produce a more significant change of course for America’s immigration policy than for the fighting in the Middle East, according to analysts from both political parties.

Despite the anti-war cries from Democrats and the dire warnings from Republicans about the consequences of retreat, the incoming Congress may lack the will to force an American withdrawal from Iraq. Wary of being seen as abandoning the troops, Democratic leaders have already ruled out blocking further funding for the conflict.

“We’re not going to do that,” the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, said in a conference call with reporters yesterday. “That’s not on the table.”

Democrats are promising greater oversight of the war, but in a recent interview with ABC, Vice President Cheney vowed that President Bush’s Iraq policy would proceed “full speed ahead,” regardless of the electoral outcome today.

“The Democrats have portrayed this sense that somehow, one way or another, they’ll be able to influence what happens there, but the reality is what happens there and what can happen there involves some very tough decisions that neither the president nor for that matter the Democrats have wanted to make,” a former chief of staff to President Clinton, Leon Panetta, told The New York Sun.

Some analysts said the report on Iraq expected in December from a bipartisan commission headed by a former secretary of state, James Baker, could provide cover for lawmakers and the White House to adjust their stances on Iraq.

However, Mr. Panetta, who is on the study panel, said it will not offer easy answers. “Nobody has gotten to the bottom line,” he said of policymakers in Washington. “Let me tell you, the bottom line isn’t a pleasant place to be.”

If opinion polls prove correct and a Democratic House of Representatives is elected today, an easier area of agreement with the White House will be immigration. Mr. Bush favors an “earned legalization” program for immigrants working in this country illegally. In May, the Senate voted, 62-36, in favor of legislation in line with the White House’s plan, but the Republican-controlled House dismissed the legalization approach. Some Republican lawmakers said Mr. Bush’s plan amounted to amnesty for illegal aliens.

“Immigration is the one major proposal where the president might have a chance of getting success, because the Democrats have been more receptive than the Republicans,” a Brookings Institution fellow in governance studies, Stephen Hess, said.

None of the analysts interviewed for this story said they expected any movement on Social Security, despite Mr. Bush’s claim that he plans to take another stab at reform.

“I don’t see it on Social Security or Medicare reform of any significance. I think it will have to wait for the next administration,” the director of the Congress project at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Donald Wolfensberger, said. “I don’t see either party in Congress wanting to touch that third rail this time around….I’m not sure President Bush has any political capital left.”

However, one longtime Congressional observer said some early steps towards universal health coverage should not be ruled out.”I can imagine an approach to the problem of the uninsured in a fashion similar what they did in Massachusetts,” a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Norman Ornstein, said.

One element of the Democratic House candidates’ campaign platform that might be enacted quickly is an increase in the minimum wage. Versions of a minimum wage hike were approved in both chambers this year, though add-on provisions doomed the legislation. A hike of the wage floor, which has not been raised since 1997, is opposed by some businesses, but many observers believe Mr. Bush would sign a hike if it reaches his desk.

Today’s election probably will herald a halt to new trade deals with foreign countries, since so many candidates have promised to try to stem trade-related job losses. A Democrat-controlled Congress is unlikely to grant the so-called fast-track authority needed to reach new trade agreements.

“The trade agenda would yield gridlock,” the director of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, Michael Franc, said. “The ability of our trade negotiators to go toe to toe with their counterparts will be diminished.”

One major obstacle to compromise between the executive and legislative branches in the next session will be the looming presidential election. At least 11 senators and two House members are reported to be mulling presidential bids. Their efforts to court the bases of their respective parties could undermine bold policy undertakings.

“My guts tell me that after six years of confrontation it is not going to be easy for Bush or the Democrats to suddenly embrace each other,” Mr. Panetta said. “They have about six months of this session to try to make their mark. If they can’t do it in six months, they will not able to do it because the presidential race will be upon us.”