Which is more likely?

[Frenchrepublican]

People thinking a Democrats is more likely to win a Trump +21 state than a Republican is to win a Clinton +5 state:

[Frenchrepublican]

Even if Marshall wins the R nomination for Senate, Bollier winning will be more likely than Gardner getting reelected.

LOL

Gardner will lose by 5 to 8, Marshall would win by double digits, stop with this ridiculous ''kAnSaS iS bEcoMinNg a bLuE sTaTe'' talk.

[Frenchrepublican]

You've gotta be kidding me Atlas Forum.

All of 1 OP & 9 "Gardner" poll voters = The entire contingent of Atlas Forum

No, but only on this forum is this kind of question asked and the way more strongly partisan state is chosen to be more likely to flip because of trends and good/bad candidate analysis.

Because as we all know, the presidential election results of one year are all that matters, and blue states have been more than willing to send Republicans to the Senate in the past decade.

ND was way more partisan than NM in 2012 and both states had "strong challengers." Why did Democrats win ND and Republicans lose NM, then?

2012 is basically another era. Even if I agree with you that republicans are unfortunately more likely to fall for the ''moderate democrat'' trap you have to agree that the number of red state democrats in the Senate has dropped a lot over the past eight years.

[Frenchrepublican]

2012 is basically another era. Even if I agree with you that republicans are unfortunately more likely to fall for the ''moderate democrat'' trap you have to agree that the number of red state democrats in the Senate has dropped a lot over the past eight years.

2012 was another era? Let’s see...

2014: KS-SEN competitive, GA-SEN competitive, KY-SEN somewhat competitive, Republicans barely win Alaska, South Dakota isn’t Safe R from day one (mostly because of Pressler)  
2016: Republicans barely hold Missouri (this one could have gone either way, which is embarrassing), IN-SEN competitive (it’s easy to forget that Bayh was ahead by double digits when he entered the race)
2018: TN-SEN competitive (Bredesen was ahead when he entered the race); Democrats win a Senate race in a Trump +42 state which should have been an easy pick-up for Republicans; Democrats comfortably hold a Senate seat in a Trump +20 state (guess Rosendale having a Baltimore accent was just too much for the experts at the NRSC); Heitkamp/Donnelly/McCaskill all lose but still do way better than their state's partisan lean would suggest in spite of their unpopularity (Heitkamp did 21 points better than Obama in 2012, she did 25 points better than Clinton in 2018!)

But sure, keep assuming that every Trump state is guaranteed to vote for a Republican Senator in 2020. There’s really no point in arguing with you because we’re never going to agree anyway, so let’s just leave it at that.

2014 :

KS : Yeah it was closer than it should have been, but it was not technically a D vs R, had Roberts being opposed by a true democrat he would have won by more

GA : Perdue won by 6 against a solid candidate in what was a open race, it's not bad.

KY : The state is less republican in congressional races than in presidential races

AK : We had to face a democratic incumbent, keep that in mind

SD : Like you pointed out, the results were biased because of Pressler

2016 :

IN : Bayh was a very strong candidate, in 2004 he had been reelected with 65% of the vote statewide !

MO : Well, Blunt slept at wheel and was only saved by Trump

2018 :

TN : Well, Blackburn won by 11, not bad, and like for the 2016 IN-SEN race you have to keep in mind that Bredesen was an institution ; in 2006 he carried every county in the state.

ND/MO/IN : republicans were outspent by a 1 to 4 ratio in MO and ND + the incumbency advantage and the hostile climate

Well, at least we agree on the fact that people at the NRSC suck and should be fired