But they fear that Mrs. Clinton has been pulled left by the election and will be held there by newly empowered progressive forces such as Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, making it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve any legislative compromises acceptable to Republicans. And they note that Mrs. Clinton, should she win the White House, will start out with nothing resembling the personal popularity that President Obama had at the beginning of his first term. Republicans were willing to buck him then, so challenging Mrs. Clinton now does not seem like a stretch.

At the same time, the election has provided Republicans with a painful, up-close look at dissatisfaction among their voters, who might revolt if the party even considers giving ground to Democrats. Already, there are cries for Senate Republicans to indefinitely stonewall any Supreme Court nominee to prevent the court from becoming more liberal.

With the House majority expected to shrink, perhaps considerably, and become more conservative, Republicans fear they will struggle to assemble bipartisan majorities to do the fundamental tasks of governing such as increasing the debt limit — a looming early test — and funding the government, let alone to strike big-picture policy compromises.

Any move by Mr. Ryan and his allies to rely too heavily on Democrats to pass legislation will immediately provoke a backlash from the hard-right element of his caucus and potentially put his job at risk. Those conservatives are already agitating for a delay in party leadership elections next month in an apparent effort to win time to gauge Mr. Ryan’s postelection mind-set. And many House conservatives remain more inclined to investigate Mrs. Clinton than to meet her at the negotiating table.

Top Republicans say there is a reasonable political argument to be made for digging in and awaiting 2018, when Republicans will have a distinct advantage in Senate races in a midterm environment more favorable to them.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader in waiting, hopes that is not the case.

“I think there is a moral imperative to get government working again,” he said in an interview. “People are angry and sour in part because the government is paralyzed. If we are gridlocked again for the next four years, the election of 2020 will make the election of 2016 look tame.”