Which seat would you rather see your party win?

[Xing]

I did this for the 2016 races in these states, so I figured I might as well do it for 2018 as well. If you had to choose just one of these races for your party to win, which would it be? For Independents, assume Democrats and Republicans split these two races, and vote for the way in which you'd prefer them to be split.

This is tough for me. I like McCaskill a bit more than Donnelly, but I know that if McCaskill wins again in 2018, she'll just become the top GOP target of 2024. I think she'll be targeted as long as she's in office, whereas Donnelly might be seen as a more formidable candidate with crossover appeal if he manages to win in 2018 (especially if his opponent isn't a joke.) I guess I'll go with Missouri, though, since the reaction of McCaskill's haters would be pretty priceless.

[user12345]

McCaskill, because she is one of my favorite Senators even if we disagree on some big issues.

[Xing]

Take a wild guess.

I'm curious, do you hate McCaskill more than Climbing Maggie?

[Xing]

Take a wild guess.

I'm curious, do you hate McCaskill more than Climbing Maggie?

While I'll be disappointed when McCaskill wins reelection, I'd be fine with the GOP picking up either ND or MT instead.

Even if they don't win either race, at least you can count on Duffy and Walker winning by double digits.

[jamestroll]

McCaskill, because she is one of my favorite Senators even if we disagree on some big issues.

Yes McCaskill is great. I disagree with her on some big issues. Like I totally disagree and was disappointed with her vote on ObamaCare. But it is what it is.

I would be happy to see McCaskill re-elected but from a state level perspective I am more interested in retaining Auditor and gaining back some legislative seats in 2018. But I understand the Senate seat is extremely important for Democrats.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I would rather pick up Missouri, because McCaskill is far more liberal than Donnelly.

[houseonaboat]

Has Donnelly taken a position on a controversial issue in his life? He seems to exist solely to legislate on noncontroversial, bipartisan and (frankly) low-impact issues like mental health for veterans reform and opioid addiction. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it's an obvious strategic choice on his part and one that I don't think is likely to pay off.

At least McCaskill, even if she loses, will go out with guns blazing (or not, because she supports stronger gun control ).

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Has Donnelly taken a position on a controversial issue in his life? He seems to exist solely to legislate on noncontroversial, bipartisan and (frankly) low-impact issues like mental health for veterans reform and opioid addiction. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it's an obvious strategic choice on his part and one that I don't think is likely to pay off.

At least McCaskill, even if she loses, will go out with guns blazing (or not, because she supports stronger gun control ).

Donnelly has voted with Republicans in attempts to ban abortion at 20 weeks and defund PP.

[Young Conservative]

I would rather pick up Missouri, because McCaskill is far more liberal than Donnelly.

[PAK Man]

McCaskill, simply because everybody and their grandma wants her to lose. Seeing her win would feel good for so many reasons. I'm also one of those rare people that doesn't believe she's in as much danger as people claim she is (her defeating Akin with 54% of the vote couldn't have been solely because he was an awful candidate - polling showed the race tight and in the end, it wasn't even close).

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

McCaskill, simply because everybody and their grandma wants her to lose. Seeing her win would feel good for so many reasons. I'm also one of those rare people that doesn't believe she's in as much danger as people claim she is (her defeating Akin with 54% of the vote couldn't have been solely because he was an awful candidate - polling showed the race tight and in the end, it wasn't even close).

Yeah, I think she probably would have won anyway in 2012 even if Akin wasn't the nominee (how that would affect the national situation is another can of worms entirely). At this stage I think it's absurd to call the race Likely R. I would hesitate to even call it Lean R.

[PAK Man]

McCaskill, simply because everybody and their grandma wants her to lose. Seeing her win would feel good for so many reasons. I'm also one of those rare people that doesn't believe she's in as much danger as people claim she is (her defeating Akin with 54% of the vote couldn't have been solely because he was an awful candidate - polling showed the race tight and in the end, it wasn't even close).

Yeah, I think she probably would have won anyway in 2012 even if Akin wasn't the nominee (how that would affect the national situation is another can of worms entirely). At this stage I think it's absurd to call the race Likely R. I would hesitate to even call it Lean R.

I consider the race a pure tossup at this point. I'm kind of like Sabato and Rothenberg/Gonzales in that I always give the incumbent/incumbent party the benefit of the doubt, unless there is truly a reason to think they won't win (ie, West Virginia senate once Rockefeller announced he was retiring - at least before that, there was a SLIM chance the race could be competitive - though I would have expected him to lose pretty badly).

[Coolface Sock #42069]

This isn't even a question.

Joe Donnelly is a relatively moderate Dem who bucks his party from time to time (even though he did vote for Obamacare) and is relatively inoffensive.

Some of the stuff Claire McCaskill has said belongs on tumblr.

[Maxwell]

One Trick Donnelly is a good man but I definitely would rather have McCaskill if I had to pick.

[Blackacre]

do we ever have one of these polls where the two parties disagree on which seat they'd rather have? Because here it looks like everyone's targeting Missouri

[Blackacre]

do we ever have one of these polls where the two parties disagree on which seat they'd rather have? Because here it looks like everyone's targeting Missouri

McCaskill is crooked.

I know you don't like her, what I'm saying here is that I find it interesting that both the Dems and the Republicans are prioritising Missouri over Indiana. I think i saw something similar when these two states were pitted against each other in 2016 too.

Like, I wonder if there's an arrangement like this where one Atlas party would prioritise one seat and the other Atlas party would favour the other seat

[jamestroll]

do we ever have one of these polls where the two parties disagree on which seat they'd rather have? Because here it looks like everyone's targeting Missouri

McCaskill is crooked.

Everyone on this site says she is crooked but yet no one has given any examples. Please give examples to support your case.

[Mr. Smith]

Indiana.

[publicunofficial]

Indiana. I don't like McCaskill all that much.

[Figueira]

As a state I like Indiana more (despite awful politicians) but McCaskill is much better than Donnelly.

[Cynthia]

McCaskill. She's a reasonably liberal senator, as opposed to moderate Donnelly.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I'd rather go back in time and have Beautiful Kander and Bayh win and let the GOP have these. I don't care strongly either way about the pair. I guess Donnelly because a) abortion; b) his opponents are slightly more likely to be terrible. Though McCaskill is definitely more respectable overall.

[Del Tachi]

Missouri because Donnelly > McCaskill

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Indiana.

-If Pence fails there, it'd look really bad for Trump.

[RINO Tom]

I'd rather there be Republicans from Indiana than Republicans from Missouri added to our caucus, judging solely by the current MO Repubs and IN Repubs that I'm aware of.  Plus, Indiana has put in a lot of years of party loyalty that Missouri hasn't, so I hold more of a soft spot for them.