Which Senate race would you rather your party won?

[Blackacre]

This is a tough call.

In the immediate term, for the next congress, I'd go with Bayh. He's a veteran legislator who knows many Republicans in the upper chamber and so could be very handy in crafting bipartisan legislation or cutting deals. To advance immigration reform, improving Obamacare, confirming justices, raising the min wage, infrastructure projects and so on, I'd rather have Bayh than Kander.

However, in the long term, Kander is obviously superior. Bayh's volatile. He could leave again in 2022. But even if he doesn't, eventually he will be defeated by an outsider-y Republican running against his public service and dynastic implications. The shelf life on split tickets will run out sooner in Indiana than Missouri. Kander, on the other hand, is an amazing candidate. He's co-opted the optics of the Republicans while remaining a generic D, and because he's running as a veteran he's hard to attack. (note none of this is my original thoughts; this is from a conversation on the IRC) Kander is more likely to win re-election because you couldn't credibly run as an outsider against him quite the same way you could against Bayh. Plus, Bayh will never be President. You can't say that about Kander.

In the end, I guess I'd take Kander. Weighing the positives of both, the advantages that Bayh has are not exclusive to him. Feingold and Schumer and Durbin and Manchin can all do the same thing: cut deals and advance key legislation during the next congress. Bayh would be an invaluable asset, but not required. What Kander brings to the table, however, is rarer and more stable. He could be a model for other red-state Democrats, he's far more likely to keep his seat for a long period of time than Bayh, and he's a rising star in a party without many. I'd much rather have both; I'd take Kander and Bayh over McGinty and Hassan for example if I had to pick two. But as it is, to answer your question, if I had to choose, I'd take the long-term benefit over the short-term one.

[Blackacre]

He's co-opted the optics of the Republicans while remaining a generic D

That's exactly how it is. Have you read this great post, James?

I'm pretty sure Jimmie was there during the IRC convo about why Kander is such a good candidate.

[Blackacre]

I have a prediction:

MO Senate 2016 will  be the closest race in the nation. Even by raw votes. A recount will occur.

I'm actually predicting that as well, lol.

And regarding McCaskill... well, she's a moderate the same way Ron Johnson is a moderate. Fortunately, she doesn't have the necessary skills and charisma that Kander has to beat Ann Wagner in two years.

I remember slightly differently about her record... I remember her bragging about being the 50th most liberal senator in her run for re-election in 2012. Now that's changed since because the Senate's gone republican, but she's still not a median liberal, right?

According to http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate, McCaskill's ranked as the 47th most liberal Senator, between King and Donnelly. (she's closest to King) That would make her, of course, the 47th most liberal Senator caucusing with the Democrats, or the 4th most conservative Democratic caucuser. If you look more broadly at the Senators that surround her, she's in the same ballpark as Heitcamp, Manchin, Donnelly, King, Warner, and Kaine. That makes sense. (sidenote: Tester is 37th, decently far away from the other red state dems)

Ron Johnson, on the other hand, is the 93rd most liberal Senator, or the 8th most conservative. He's closest to Pat Roberts of Kanses, and is slightly more conservative than Cornyn. He's in the ballpark with Barrasso, Perdue, Isakson, and Inhofe.

Basically, equating the two is false equivalence. McCaskill isn't as conservative as Heitcamp but she's close, and it seems she votes like a red state Democrat in this congress would be expected to. Johnson seems to vote not like a blue or purple state Republican senator, but like a deep red state republican senator.