If recent history is accurate this has been a great thing for Hillary Clinton, and possibly Democrats as a whole in 2016. Voters have repeatedly see-sawed between their two available choices for 6 years now, and there's good reason to believe that will continue in 2016, which is an electoral map that is basically the opposite of this one in every possible way. In addition, with Republicans in Congress, lessons from Bill Clinton's Presidency indicate that they may in fact energize Obama in a way he can't do himself, given the republican majority is now divided between the leadership with it's eye on the 2016 Congressional elections, rising stars with their eye on running for President in 2016, conservatives under the impression that the election results represent the embracing of everything conservatives stand for who want to take the fight to Obama in the loudest way possible, vulnerable blue-state republicans who want to antagonize their states as little as possible, and rank-and-file who resent any and all of the previous categories. Given the one of the main problems for democrats was low turnout, it stands to reason an active republican congress may be an asset rather then an liability.
Other news that is interesting is that, with the success of the "War on Coal" narrative, democrats don't actually have many people left in coal country to attack with it (whereas "War on Women" applies nationally), meaning much less compromise from democrats in the future on the issue. As someone concerned about the environment but unhappy with gridlock, I am not 100% sure how to feel about that.