On the courts, Hillary getting elected in 2016 will guarantee a GOP win in 2020, so I fail to see how that will help you get your picks. And she said she will appoint that corrupt bastard (from the Oklahoma City trial) Garland. He is about the same in ideology as the typical Reagan/Bush judge.
On Health Care, the individual mandate (plus other mandates) is an issue that people have come to hate as they learn about it (and have to pay the big tax/fine while still not getting insurance), so how will that help anybody but the GOP? Fundamentally, the GOP is the biggest beneficiary of the Affordable Care Act. The individual mandate was the GOP brainchild from the 1990s and have been ever since (Romney championed it the entire decade of the aughts, including as Governor). Romney lost to Obama (for many reasons he could have avoided including his support/championing of the mandate) because people had no candidate who opposed the mandate. And that was before the awful thing even kicked in. Hillary, in 2007/2008 became the first ever Democrat to support the (essentially)right-wing individual mandate. And Obama fought her tooth and nails (2007 to 2008) on the issue, correctly pointing out that it will make it HARDER for people to fund their healthcare. He understated it then, but in August of 2009, he caved in to the right-wing (and special interests that are non-ideological but supportive of the right on this issue) on the issue. The special interest triumphed over the public interest. One liberal democratic congressman (from Cleveland) correctly called the Affordable Care Act a "bailout for the insurance companies", but it was even worse as it a bailout that just kills poor and lower income folks with the mandate.
Electorally, the individual mandate will be the gift that keeps on giving - especially in midterm elections. Unless the mandate is repealed, then the GOP will gain 10-12 Senate seats in 2018. Also, don't forget this. Many Democratic Senators won (very narrowly) in 2012 because Obama opposed gun control (even after the "Batman" shooting in the summer of 2012), but he came out in favor of gun control in December (post-election lol). Trump supports mental health discrimination and background checks, so Hillary lucked out by having him defeat Cruz (who bucked his own part and fellow Senator John Cornyn by opposing the NRA, Obama and Hillary on the background checks). Even Rubio (who supports mental health discriminatory background checks) would have been much better than Trump - on the issue - because he is skilled enough as a politician to slam Hillary hard on other gun-related issues. Rubio is a good political marksman, though not in the GOP primary of course. 2018 Senate seats, Democrats narrowly won in 2012, like Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, Virginia, West Virginia, and others (maybe even Pennsylvania) will easily flip to the GOP.
On Climate Change, Trump is an unknown on that issue. He has only said that he will support policies that keep the 55,000 coal miners employed, but he hasn't said that he won't support win and solar. He might be even more supportive of wind and solar than Hillary (that isn't saying much, granted).
But anyway, the fact that Trump isn't making hay over the Supreme Court and the gun issue being in the balance (now 4-4!) is beyond me. He should be slaughtering her on this issue. He seems clueless. He really can't bet her easily in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, and North Carolina just on this one issue alone?
Then again, the fact that he seems so clueless, in the general election (though he did good in the primary thanks to Chris Christie taking down Rubio in the New Hampshire debate), causes one to be even more amazed that Hillary is having so much trouble (The fact that she is so out of touch with human beings & humanity in general is the OBVIOUS answer to the question, but still Trump has a negative to positive ratio of like 2-1).
™ Version 4.2
