Real simple one, inspired by Chait and Sprung.
Suppose the following things are true: that as it was, Barack Obama and the Democrats got the best possible deal they could get on health care reform (and, for that matter, the various other things they passed in 2010); that they could have won quite a bit more stimulus spending had the never tried to get health care reform; that more stimulus spending would have improved the economy significantly in the short term; and that helping the economy would have saved about 30 House seats and around half a dozen to ten Senate seats in November.
I'm trying to phrase this to wind up with the following question: if the choice was the ACA as passed in exchange for the difference between a mild midterm election loss and a blowout, did Obama and the Democrats make the right choice? I suppose I'm happy to hear from those who opposed the ACA from the left (although their opinion is obvious, and a clear minority according to polling), but I don't really want arguments that both were possible, or that a better health care bill was possible. In other words, for the sake of this question, please accept the premises. Not because they're true -- I'm not claiming that they are -- but because the question I'm interested in is the one about trade-offs.