Was Hillary's loss the best thing to ever happen to the Democrats?

[TML]

One of the good things to come out of this is that positions like universal health care, free higher education, a livable minimum wage, etc. are now much more popular than 10-20 years ago, and terms like socialism are no longer taboo in the political mainstream. I also believe that Democratic wins down-ballot during the Trump administration will help them rebuild their bench, and that there exists the potential for an FDR-type candidate to emerge and win in 2020.

[TML]

Yeah, losing the Supreme Court for a generation in exchange for fleeting electoral victories where they won't be able to accomplish a damn thing due to divided government sure was worth it.

But we get to see more blue on the map or something, so I guess that's enough for Atlas.

Would Hillary's SCOTUS pick have been given a hearing by the GOP-controlled Senate, though? I would think Yes because the GOP said that the winner of 2016 should decide who gets to fill Scalia's seat, but given that the GOP would have suspected that it would have gotten an even larger Senate majority after 2018, might it have decided to leave this seat unfilled for four years?

I suspect that what might have transpired is that the Senate would consent to holding hearings (remember that Grassley stated that he wouldn't refuse hearings simply because the nominee was picked by Clinton), but following the hearings, Republican Senators would unite to vote down her nominees if they weren't conservative enough. I don't think Republican Senators would have continued to refuse holding hearings because that would probably have provided ammunition for Democratic Senate candidates to use against them in 2018.

[TML]

Yeah, losing the Supreme Court for a generation in exchange for fleeting electoral victories where they won't be able to accomplish a damn thing due to divided government sure was worth it.

But we get to see more blue on the map or something, so I guess that's enough for Atlas.

Would Hillary's SCOTUS pick have been given a hearing by the GOP-controlled Senate, though? I would think Yes because the GOP said that the winner of 2016 should decide who gets to fill Scalia's seat, but given that the GOP would have suspected that it would have gotten an even larger Senate majority after 2018, might it have decided to leave this seat unfilled for four years?

I suspect that what might have transpired is that the Senate would consent to holding hearings (remember that Grassley stated that he wouldn't refuse hearings simply because the nominee was picked by Clinton), but following the hearings, Republican Senators would unite to vote down her nominees if they weren't conservative enough. I don't think Republican Senators would have continued to refuse holding hearings because that would probably have provided ammunition for Democratic Senate candidates to use against them in 2018.

Would the GOP have been able to maintain a united front? After all, Sotomayor and Kagan both got some Republican votes.

If the Republican party was more popular than the Democratic party overall, then probably yes.