The only real difference, substantively speaking, would be the Court.
Gorsuch wouldn't be on the bench obviously. Whether the seat would still be vacant or not would've depended on how the Senate races ended up.
It would not be the "only" significant difference, but it would be the most significant difference.
But I think you and Lincoln Republican underestimate the willingness of certain moderate Republican Senators to vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee picked by a Democratic President. Back in 2009-2010, both Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan. Lamar Alexander also voted to confirm Sotomayor. Lisa Murkowski, it seems to me, would be even more likely these days to cooperate with a Democratic President, including Hilary Clinton, than she had been back in 2009-2010. All it would take is two Republicans voting "yes" to confirm along with King, Sanders, and all the Democrats, then it would be up to Vice President Kaine to break the tie.
This would be the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court had a liberal majority on it, and that is VERY significant.
Yes, it's possible some Rs would've flipped even if the GOP held the Senate. The seat would've been vacant for longer though, and it's possible that it only gets filled if the Rs get something big in return in a deal. Otherwise it's unlikely to flip. What you're missing is that a) it's a heck of a lot more polarized now than it even was in 2010, and b) confirming Sotomayor/Kagan wasn't that big of a deal because it didn't change the balance on the Court. Murkowski/Collins could get away with bucking the trend on something like Obamacare, because the dirty little secret is most Republicans don't actually care about Obamacare; it was just grandstanding and a way to attack Obama (it was a GOP plan, after all). Changing the balance on the Court is a completely different story.
I think the Court would be the only real substantive difference. What other differences are you thinking about?
Obamacare would still be here obviously. It probably wouldn't have been "fixed" either, since no amount of tinkering with it is gonna solve the problem that not enough people sign up and premiums just keep going up.
Other than that, Trump hasn't passed any meaningful legislation, so I'm failing to see what the big differences would be. Clinton may have all sorts of great ideas or whatever, but it doesn't really matter since the GOP would've controlled at least the House, if not the Senate too.
I guess Clinton wouldn't have passed something like the travel ban, but the ban's actual effect was greatly sensationalized, especially by the media, since it was a great way to rile up the Dem base. In reality it's limited in duration and effects relatively few people. Something like DACA has a lot greater real impact long-term with immigration and Trump declined to repeal it.
Maybe the scope of the Syria strikes would've been greater, but I doubt we'd be in a full-scale ground war (at least yet).
So what big, substantive changes are you thinking about?
