Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I mainly used Clojure, but have been doing more Racket lately. Mainly for short scripts, because it doesn't have the warm-up time of Clojure. Racket is a beautiful language, but some things in Clojure are just opinionated in a very nice way.
For example, the seq abstraction and the fact that most sequences and functions are lazy by default is really nice. It also makes more use of polymorphism, so you can e.g. call map on a hash-map, a vector or a lazy seq. Also the fact that maps and keywords act like functions is extremely convenient. Similarly, let is actually let* and binding forms allow destructuring. Racket has all this, but you have to remember to use e.g. match.
Racket macros are a work of art and I'm only just exploring them. However, the surface area is very large. In Clojure once you know the language and some of the standard library you can write macros. In Racket it seems there's a whole other language you have to learn. It's clear though that they're extremely powerful, so I probably just need to invest more time in it.
All in all my ideal language would be Racket with some of the conveniences and choices of Clojure. Gerbil is another lisp that looks interesting; maybe I'd steal some stuff from there too. Of course, Racket is extremely well suited to building languages, so I could actually build this ideal language if I wanted (and had the time and skill required).