I agree with Jonathan Chait.

If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare it will be a disaster for Democrats (and everyone else). In New York Magazine, Chait writes (all emphasis mine): 

One possible source of comfort seized upon by liberals like James Carville, and even endorsed in somewhat different, counterintuitive form by conservative Ross Douthat, holds that an adverse Court ruling could help President Obama win reelection. The least popular part of his health-care plan, the individual mandate, would be gone. Liberals would be energized by a wildly activist Republican Supreme Court. 

There’s something absurd about comforting yourself in the face of a potential social and Constitutional disaster with the prospect of a political bump. The point of winning elections is to do things like pass health-care reform. So being cheerful that losing health-care reform will help win an election is like being happy the family dog died because now there’s space in your dog house. 

Also, I was wrong when I wrote last week that proponents of health care reform would need 60 Democratic senators: 

In the face of a total strike down, single payer probably becomes the best option. But it’s not an easy one. The hurdles to passing Obamacare were that Democrats needed to have a majority in the House, the presidency, and 60 senators. The good news to passing single payer is that they probably would only need 50 senators. (Single-payer could be done simply by expanding Medicare, a pure fiscal change that could be accomplished through a budget bill that can pass the Senate with a majority vote.)