Rob Portman of 2018

[Coraxion]

If you don't know what I mean by "Rob Portman of 2018", you should leave this forum Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) was at first considered a top-tier target for Democrats at the start of the 2016 campaign. As the campaign went on, though, the race got less and less competitive. Eventually, Portman was considered safe and he won by a landslide on Election Day. Which Senator up for reelection in 2018 do you think is most likely to pull off a similar feat?

I'd say Heitkamp.

[Kamala]

Heitkamp, because MTTreasurer told me so

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Manchin

[Xing]

I thought about Baldwin, but I actually think Ohio's other Senator, Brown, fits the bill better. I doubt he'll win by anything like 21%, but a lot of Republicans are hyping up Mandel, who, like Strickland, lost a statewide race previously (to Brown himself, no less.) Similar to how 2015 polls had Strickland ahead, the one poll we have puts Mandel ahead of Brown. I can see this race following a similar trajectory: It will look very competitive early on, with polls even giving Mandel a slight advantage, but Mandel proves to be a weak candidate, and as the election approaches, it becomes less competitive.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Sherrod Brown

[Figueira]

Unfortunately Flake might be the most likely, but I doubt it will happen.

This metaphor doesn't really work though. Portman wasn't really considered a top target until Strickland entered. It's just that Strickland was mistakenly considered an amazing candidate who could beat the otherwise unbeatable Portman.

[MarkD]

Dean Heller will fit the description.

[Cactus Jack]

I'd be most inclined to bank on Brown, because Mandel just really isn't a good candidate.

[MarkD]

If we want to continue this...

Rob Portman - Heidi Heitkamp (the race is considered competitive early on, but is a pretty easy win for the incumbent on election day)

Mark Kirk - Joe Donnelly or Claire McCaskill (self-explanatory - race is hyped as "competitive" because the incumbent is "battle-tested" or "moderate", but it's not even close in the end)

Roy Blunt - Bill Nelson (probably only if Scott runs, though - the incumbent is considered "invincible" because of his landslide victory six years ago and early polling showing him ahead by a lot, but he underperforms on election day)

Joe Heck - Dean Heller (self-explanatory)

Pat Toomey - Jon Tester (The incumbent is ahead by double digits in early polling and very overrated by his own party. Many people think he will cruise to reelection because of his "weak opponent" who won the nomination after a nasty primary fight and the fact that he is apparently a "good fit for his state" who has a lot of crossover appeal, but the race is decided by the national mood and turnout in the end)

Um, nope. That one is not self-explanatory. Joe Heck was not an incumbent, like all of the rest of the names you mentioned. Heck was running for an open seat -- Harry Reid retired -- while Portman, Heitkamp, Kirk, Donnelly, McCaskill, Blunt, Nelson, Heller, Toomey, and Tester are all examples of a Senator who sought or is seeking re-election. You are implying that Heitkamp, Donnelly, McCaskill, Nelson, and Tester are going to all win re-election. So how does Joe Heck and Dean Heller compare to one another?

[TheSaint250]

Brown is tempting, but it will be crucial to see how the trends of 2016 will carry over into 2018. Yes, Mandel is not the best candidate, but I can see him winning and certainly can see him doing better than last time.

I'd go with Jeff Flake (assuming he fights off Kelli Ward).  His general election campaign will be uneventful, and I don't think he will have a strong Democratic opponent.

[MarkD]

Re 2: Oh, yes; my mistake. By comparing Kirk to Donnelly and McCaskill you were implying that they will lose, probably big time. My bad.

[Del Tachi]

Heidi Heitkamp

[Pollster]

Heitkamp (a model candidate) or Brown (a well-liked and well-known commodity). Maybe Manchin if Jenkins loses the GOP primary.

[Xing]

If I had to draw parallels to 2016 (even though 2018 will almost certainly be unique) it'd go like this:

Kirk = Heitkamp/Donnelly/McCaskill (not sure which one), but McCaskill could also be like Ron Johnson
Ayotte or Toomey = Manchin or Tester
Blunt = Nelson
Rubio = Baldwin
Portman = Brown
McCain = Stabenow
Bennet = Flake

[Pollster]

If I had to draw parallels to 2016 (even though 2018 will almost certainly be unique) it'd go like this:

Kirk = Heitkamp/Donnelly/McCaskill (not sure which one), but McCaskill could also be like Ron Johnson
Ayotte or Toomey = Manchin or Tester
Blunt = Nelson
Rubio = Baldwin
Portman = Brown
McCain = Stabenow
Bennet = Flake

I would argue Bennet = Manchin.

[Young Conservative]

Not Sherrod Brown.

[_]

Thinking either Flake or Heitkamp.

[JMT]

Out of the list provided, I would say Tammy Baldwin. Because Wisconsin voted for Trump and can be seen as a swing state, the GOP may enlist a top tier recruit to run against Baldwin. While the ideal candidate already said he isn't running (Sean Duffy), the GOP may very well turn to Eric Hovde. Hovde would be able to run as an "outsider businessman," he'd be able to self fund a campaign (which the party would appreciate, so they wouldn't have to place many funds towards this race) and he did fairly well in the GOP Senate primary 6 years ago and would be able to build on that support. There may be polls showing him running close to Baldwin, leading many to believe the race is competitive, but towards the end of the election cycle the anti-Trump mood will propel Democrats into office, including Baldwin. In this hypothetical (but very realistic) scenario, Baldwin would be the clear favorite by the time election day rolls around, making her the Rob Portman of 2018.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Unfortunately, Brown. Mandel sucks, and it's unbelievable that in a state Trump won by nearly 10 points, the best we can do for a challenge against an extremely liberal senator is a retread who got blown out in 2012.

[BuckeyeNut]

Unfortunately, Brown. Mandel sucks, and it's unbelievable that in a state Trump won by nearly 10 points, the best we can do for a challenge against an extremely liberal senator is a retread who got blown out in 2012.

Oh, you can. The better candidates are just running for Governor since that's easier. Honestly, the more interesting question is, who will be the Strickland of 2018? Portman was a stone wall, who Democrats had no hope of taking down, but Strickland looked like a great candidate at the outset. It then became clear Portman was still the same juggernaut as always.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd be most inclined to bank on Brown, because Mandel just really isn't a good candidate.

I thought about that, but I don't even think that's a competitive race right now, tbh. 

[Vosem]

Baldwin/Nelson/Stabenow all work as answers, but I don't think they're really top-tier targets for the GOP at all (except maybe Nelson, if only because Rick Scott seems to want to have a go at him and he'll have lots of money for that effort). Jon Tester, who's in a seemingly-competitive state but who Republicans don't even have a candidate against yet, seems like the best answer.

I continue not to understand why everyone here is convinced Mandel is a bad candidate against Brown; he's got multiple double-digit statewide victories under his belt and came within 6 points in 2012, before Ohio moved right in pretty meaningful ways. I don't think he'll win, mostly because I think 2018 will be a pretty Democratic year, but I'm pretty confident that he'd be favored outright in a neutral environment. In a polarized environment in a large state people will be more inclined to vote party than they might be against Tester/Heitkamp/Manchin (the first of which I think is certainly less endangered than Brown). Democrats also haven't won any victories by double-digits in Ohio (which is what I think being the Portman of 2018 would require) since...2006.

[MT Treasurer]

^Tester isn't going to be the next Rob Portman. Unlike OH in 2015/2016, most people don't even consider the MT Senate race competitive right now and believe he is heavily favored (or safe). While it's true that there is no obvious candidate yet, I think the party will field a competent Republican in the end (hopefully Rosendale or Olszewski). MT is way too polarized for Tester to win easily, and he doesn't have as much crossover appeal as Heitkamp and Manchin.

Actually, I think the party that wins the OH Senate race will also win in MT, but who knows.

[Vosem]

^Tester isn't going to be the next Rob Portman. Unlike OH in 2015/2016, most people don't even consider the MT Senate race competitive right now and believe he is heavily favored (or safe). While it's true that there is no obvious candidate yet, I think the party will field a competent Republican in the end (hopefully Rosendale or Olszewski). MT is way too polarized for Tester to win easily, and he doesn't have as much crossover appeal as Heitkamp and Manchin.

Actually, I think the party that wins the OH Senate race will also win in MT, but who knows.

I agree in the sense that I think ultimately Tester and Brown will both be reelected (the latter mainly due to usual anti-presidential midterm effects), but I'm also pretty confident that Mandel is the best recruit the NRSC has found this cycle and in general is one of the strongest candidates on the (pretty wide) OHGOP bench, who Democrats have been swinging at unsuccessfully for most of a decade. Which makes this forum's continued belief that he's terrible seem very, very odd.

Definitely most people consider a Democrat in a Trump+24 state vulnerable. Whether that's correct or not is the point of this thread.

[Don Vito Corleone]

^Tester isn't going to be the next Rob Portman. Unlike OH in 2015/2016, most people don't even consider the MT Senate race competitive right now and believe he is heavily favored (or safe). While it's true that there is no obvious candidate yet, I think the party will field a competent Republican in the end (hopefully Rosendale or Olszewski). MT is way too polarized for Tester to win easily, and he doesn't have as much crossover appeal as Heitkamp and Manchin.

Actually, I think the party that wins the OH Senate race will also win in MT, but who knows.

I agree in the sense that I think ultimately Tester and Brown will both be reelected (the latter mainly due to usual anti-presidential midterm effects), but I'm also pretty confident that Mandel is the best recruit the NRSC has found this cycle and in general is one of the strongest candidates on the (pretty wide) OHGOP bench, who Democrats have been swinging at unsuccessfully for most of a decade. Which makes this forum's continued belief that he's terrible seem very, very odd.

Definitely most people consider a Democrat in a Trump+24 state vulnerable. Whether that's correct or not is the point of this thread.

I always though Kasich was the strongest candidate? Isn't his approval rating really high over there?