Are you happy about the Supreme Courts decision on King v. Burwell

[Frodo]

I am relieved more than anything else. 

There are only two major hurdles left until we can be certain that the Affordable Care Act's future is assured for posterity:

1. maintaining continued Democratic control of the White House after Barack Obama leaves -at least for an extra term or two.

2. winning enough seats in the Senate next year to ensure that whatever Republican gains are made in the 2018 midterms won't be enough to overturn a Presidential veto.  

[Frodo]

I am relieved more than anything else.  

There are only two major hurdles left until we can be certain that the Affordable Care Act's future is assured for posterity:

1. maintaining continued Democratic control of the White House after Barack Obama leaves -at least for an extra term or two.

2. winning enough seats in the Senate next year to ensure that whatever Republican gains are made in the 2018 midterms won't be enough to overturn a Presidential veto.  

Actually, the house is the greater barrier to enforce a veto.  It's possible to get to 67 in the senate while winning only <55% Obama 2012 states, but getting to 290 in the house would require winning D+10 urban and majority-minority seats.

I know it is, that is why I am focusing on the Senate.  Thanks both to gerrymandering and the natural compact geographic placement of Democratic voters, we will always be at a disadvantage in the House -at least for the foreseeable future.  So long as we hold the line there (preventing the GOP from getting over 250 seats), it will be enough.  Which should be doable -they just about maxed out last year, from what I understand.  

[Frodo]

I am relieved more than anything else.  

There are only two major hurdles left until we can be certain that the Affordable Care Act's future is assured for posterity:

1. maintaining continued Democratic control of the White House after Barack Obama leaves -at least for an extra term or two.

2. winning enough seats in the Senate next year to ensure that whatever Republican gains are made in the 2018 midterms won't be enough to overturn a Presidential veto.  

Actually, the house is the greater barrier to enforce a veto.  It's possible to get to 67 in the senate while winning only <55% Obama 2012 states, but getting to 290 in the house would require winning D+10 urban and majority-minority seats.

I know it is, that is why I am focusing on the Senate.  Thanks both to gerrymandering and the natural compact geographic placement of Democratic voters, we will always be at a disadvantage in the House -at least for the foreseeable future.  So long as we hold the line there (preventing the GOP from getting over 250 seats), it will be enough.  Which should be doable -they just about maxed out last year, from what I understand.  

The GOP can get to 251. Gaining AZ-1, FL-18, NE-2, and CA-7 (Or MN-7 if Peterson retires) is probably the easiest path, and is realistic as well.

Is that accounting for the losses the GOP is likely to suffer next year?