PBI or Party Brand Index is a concept I developed (with some much appreciated help from pl515) as a replacement for PVI. PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is measured by averaging the percentage of the vote from the last two presidential elections in each house district, and comparing it to the nation as a whole, is a useful shorthand for understanding the liberal v. conservative dynamics of a district. But PVI in my opinion it falls short in a number of areas. First it doesn't explain states like Arkansas or West Virginia. These states have districts who's PVIs indicates a Democrat shouldn't win, yet Democrats (outside of the presidency) win quite handily. Secondly why is this the case in Arkansas but not Oklahoma with similar PVI rated districts?
Lastly PVI can miss trends as it takes 4 years to readjust. The purpose of Party Brand Index is to give a better idea of how a candidate does not relative to how the presidential candidate did, but compared to how their generic PARTY should be expected to perform. I've tackled IN, NC, CO, VA, MO, OK, AR, WV, NH,and OH. Now I will look at the swing state of Florida.
PBI or Party Brand Index is a concept I developed (with some much appreciated help from pl515) as a replacement for PVI. PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is measured by averaging the percentage of the vote from the last two presidential elections in each house district, and comparing it to the nation as a whole, is a useful shorthand for understanding the liberal v. conservative dynamics of a district. But PVI in my opinion it falls short in a number of areas. First it doesn't explain states like Arkansas or West Virginia. These states have districts who's PVIs indicates a Democrat shouldn't win, yet Democrats (outside of the presidency) win quite handily. Secondly why is this the case in Arkansas but not Oklahoma with similar PVI rated districts?
Lastly PVI can miss trends as it takes 4 years to readjust. The purpose of Party Brand Index is to give a better idea of how a candidate does not relative to how the presidential candidate did, but compared to how their generic PARTY should be expected to perform. I've tackled IN, NC, CO, VA, MO, OK, AR, WV, and NH. Now I will look at the swing state of Ohio.
PBI or Party Brand Index is a concept I developed (with some much appreciated help from pl515) as a replacement for PVI. PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is measured by averaging the percentage of the vote from the last two presidential elections in each house district, and comparing it to the nation as a whole, is a useful shorthand for understanding the liberal v. conservative dynamics of a district. But PVI in my opinion it falls short in a number of areas. First it doesn't explain states like Arkansas or West Virginia. These states have districts who's PVIs indicates a Democrat shouldn't win, yet Democrats (outside of the presidency) win quite handily. Secondly why is this the case in Arkansas but not Oklahoma with similar PVI rated districts?
Lastly PVI can miss trends as it takes 4 years to readjust. The purpose of Party Brand Index is to give a better idea of how a candidate does not relative to how the presidential candidate did, but compared to how their generic PARTY should be expected to perform. I've tackled IN, NC, CO, VA, MO, OK, AR, now I will look at the swing states of West Virginia and New Hampshire.
PBI or Party Brand Index is a concept I developed (with some much appreciated help from pl515) as a replacement for PVI. PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is measured by averaging the percentage of the vote from the last two presidential elections in each house district, and comparing it to the nation as a whole, is a useful shorthand for understanding the liberal v. conservative dynamics of a district. But PVI in my opinion it falls short in a number of areas. First it doesn't explain states like Arkansas or West Virginia. These states have districts who's PVIs indicates a Democrat shouldn't win, yet Democrats (outside of the presidency) win quite handily. Secondly why is this the case in Arkansas but not Oklahoma with similar PVI rated districts?
Lastly PVI can miss trends as it takes 4 years to readjust. The purpose of Party Brand Index is to give a better idea of how a candidate does not relative to how the presidential candidate did, but compared to how their generic PARTY should be expected to perform. I've tackled IN, NC, CO, VA, MO, OK, AR, now I will look at the swing states of Nevada and Iowa.
Continuing on with a concept I developed called PBI or Party Brand Index (with some much appreciated help from pl515) as a replacement for PVI. PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is measured by averaging the percentage of the vote from the last two presidential elections in each house district, and comparing it to the nation as a whole, is a useful shorthand for understanding the liberal v. conservative dynamics of a district. But PVI in my opinion it falls short in a number of areas. First it doesn't explain states like Arkansas or West Virginia. These states have districts who's PVIs indicates a Democrat shouldn't win, yet Democrats (outside of the presidency) win quite handily. Secondly why is this the case in Arkansas but not Oklahoma with similar PVI rated districts?
Lastly PVI can miss trends as it takes 4 years to readjust. The purpose of Party Brand Index is to give a better idea of how a candidate does not relative to how the presidential candidate did, but compared to how their generic PARTY should be expected to perform. Last week I tackled NC, this week I'm tackling MO, OK, AR.
I have been working on a concept I'm calling PBI or Party Brand Index, as a replacement for PVI. PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is measured by averaging voting percentage from the last two presidential elections in each house district, and comparing it to how the nation as a whole voted, is a useful shorthand for understanding the liberal v. conservative dynamics of a district. But in my opinion it falls short in a number of areas. First it doesn't explain states like Arkansas or West Virginia. These states have districts who's PVI indicates a Democrat shouldn't win, yet Democrats (outside of the presidency) win quite handily. Secondly why is this the case in Arkansas but not Oklahoma with similar PVI rated districts?
Secondly PVI can miss trends as it takes 4 years to readjust. The main purpose of Party Brand Index is to give a better idea of how a candidate does not relative to how the presidential candidate did, but compared to how their generic PARTY would be expected to perform. This week I'll tackle North Carolina.
I have been working on (with some much appreciated help from pl515) a concept I'm calling PBI or Party Brand Index, as a replacement for PVI. PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is measured by averaging voting percentage from the last two presidential elections in each house district, and comparing it to how the nation as a whole voted, is a useful shorthand for understanding the liberal v. conservative dynamics of a district. But in my opinion it falls short in a number of areas. First it doesn't explain states like Arkansas or West Virginia. These states have districts who's PVI indicates a Democrat would be in a hard position to win, never the less Democrats (outside of the presidency) win quite handily. Secondly why is that the case in Arkansas but not Oklahoma with similar PVI rated districts?
Secondly PVI can miss trends as it takes 4 years to readjust. The main purpose of Party Brand Index is to give a better idea of how a candidate does not relative to how the presidential candidate did, but rather compared to how their generic PARTY would be expected to perform. I'm calling this Party Brand Index.
One year ago I tried out an experiment where I plotted US Representatives' voting records against the presidential lean of their districts, in an effort to identify what representatives were not the most liberal or conservative, but who most overperformed or underperformed their districts. After some hemming and hawing, it was called the PVI/Vote Index. The point of the exercise was to give some clarity and focus to one of the most frequently heard refrains of the liberal blogosphere: "We're going to primary that ratfink so-and-so," usually delivered without much consideration as to what kind of candidate that district might actually support.
It's time to revisit the topic, partly because another year has gone by, and aggregators have released another year's worth of data, letting us look at the 110th Congress as a whole (instead of just 2007). Also, with the creation of the blogger/labor Accountability Now PAC for purposes of nudging (or primarying) recalcitrant Dems, with Progressive Punch adding a similar function to their website, and with even the Cook Political Report (subscription req'd) tipping a toe into this type of analysis, it seems like other people are starting to zero in on who is and isn't a good fit for his or her district.
As before, the Index is based on a pretty simple idea: rank every district from 1 to 435 in terms of how Democratic its presidential voting record is, rank every representative from 1 to 435 in terms of how liberal his or her voting record is, and find the difference, with a larger difference in one direction or the other meaning that representative is overperforming or underperforming the district's lean. (There are a host of methodological issues that go along with this assumption, and I'll discuss some of them over the fold. In the meantime, let's get right to the numbers.)
Let's start with Democrats who are underperforming their districts (in other words, Democrats whose voting records are less liberal than their district composition would ordinarily support):
Rep.
District
PVI
PVI rank
DW/N
Liberal rank
Difference
A. Davis
AL-07
D+17
65
- 0.286
183.5
- 118.5
Meeks
NY-06
D+38
6
- 0.397
122
- 116
Meek
FL-17
D+35
11
- 0.390
126
- 115
Jefferson
LA-02
D+28
28
- 0.371
139
- 111
Doyle
PA-14
D+22
42
- 0.363
142
- 100
Engel
NY-17
D+21
45
- 0.378
137
- 92
Brady
PA-01
D+36
9.5
- 0.439
96
- 86.5
Sires
NJ-13
D+23
39
- 0.398
121
- 82
Berman
CA-28
D+25
35.5
- 0.406
117.5
- 82
Fattah
PA-02
D+39
5
- 0.454
84.5
- 79.5
D. Scott
GA-13
D+10
112
- 0.257
191
- 79
Moran
VA-08
D+14
81
- 0.345
152.5
- 71.5
Crowley
NY-07
D+28
29
- 0.431
100
- 71
Rush
IL-01
D+35
12
- 0.455
83
- 71
Lipinski
IL-03
D+10
106.5
- 0.312
174
- 67.5
Reyes
TX-16
D+9
117.5
- 0.286
183.5
- 66
Towns
NY-10
D+41
3
- 0.492
69
- 66
Harman
CA-36
D+11
103.5
- 0.319
169
- 65.5
Rangel
NY-15
D+43
2
- 0.493
67
-65
Cooper
TN-05
D+6
144.5
- 0.211
208.5
- 64
Three of the top four underperformers here were also in the top four last year: Artur Davis, Kendrick Meek, and Bill Jefferson, which indicates that the pattern is pretty consistent. (The fourth, Greg Meeks, not coincidentally the only African-American member of the New Dems besides Davis and Meek, replaces Charlie Rangel.)
Notice something else interesting? We don't have to primary any of those three! Jefferson learned the hard way that the future is Cao, while Davis and Meek are doing us a solid by opening up their seats to run for higher office. (And if they somehow win, they'll immediately switch from goats to heroes in my book, since if they stay consistent policy-wise, they'll suddenly be vastly overperforming the lean of their states as a whole.)
But it does shine a spotlight on the open primaries in AL-07, FL-17, and LA-02. These primaries should be absolute top priority for blogosphere action: these are districts that can support progressives, not just centrists, and we have basically free shots at electing Better Democrats here. (These mostly-African-American districts may be a little outside the familiarity zone of the mostly-white blogosphere, but remember that one of our signature achievements is knocking off Al Wynn in MD-04, which is what can happen when the netroots and the local grassroots actually work in concert.)
As with last year, the list is heavy on Congressional Black Caucus members, some of whom are also Progressive Caucus members. The latter may not be terribly fruitful targets (although, again, the primaries will be very important once they retire), who are being penalized a bit unfairly for living in some of the nation's most Democratic districts. They'd need to be in McDermott/Kucinich/Lee territory to be truly apt 'fits' for their districts.
Some better targets might be a little further down the list, including frequent netroots foils like Dan Lipinski and the newly-vulnerable Jane Harman. To my eye, one of the juiciest targets is Jim Cooper, about the only representative in a district with a solidly Dem PVI who's not just voting poorly around the margins but on some of the important stuff as well (like the stimulus). Pressure on Cooper is particularly important as the focus turns to health care, as his singular influence in the health care arena gives him unique power to obstruct progessive health care policy.
Now let's turn to the good news: the Democrats who are most overperforming their districts, and who are most deserving of our praise (or in the case of the bluest Dogs, our tolerance). As with last year, it's a mix of flat-out progressives in swing or light-blue districts, and Blue Doggish types who are entrenched in deep-red districts that would likely flip without them (or, in the sad cases of Lampson and Boyda, Blue Doggish types who failed to get entrenched):
Rep.
District
PVI
PVI rank
DW/N
Liberal rank
Difference
C. Edwards
TX-17
R+18
417
- 0.240
196
221
G. Taylor
MS-04
R+16
404.5
- 0.248
193
211.5
Matheson
UT-02
R+17
408
- 0.154
222
186
Pomeroy
ND-AL
R+13
379
- 0.245
194
185
DeFazio
OR-04
D+0
200
- 0.602
27
173
Lampson
TX-22
R+15
390
- 0.038
234
156
Doggett
TX-25
D+1
187.5
- 0.533
49
138.5
Herseth
SD-AL
R+10
337
- 0.234
199
138
Skelton
MO-04
R+11
347
- 0.203
212
135
Hinchey
NY-22
D+6
147
- 0.685
13
134
Stupak
MI-01
R+2
228.5
- 0.436
97
131.5
Filner
CA-51
D+7
137
- 0.723
9.5
127.5
Oberstar
MN-08
D+4
160
- 0.570
36
124
Kucinich
OH-10
D+8
125
- 0.791
3
122
Spratt
SC-05
R+6
283.5
- 0.325
165
118.5
Obey
WI-07
D+2
185
- 0.486
72
113
Chandler
KY-06
R+7
300.5
- 0.256
192
108.5
Rodriguez
TX-23
R+4
254.5
- 0.348
150
104.5
Boyda
KS-02
R+7
308
- 0.218
206
102
Boucher
VA-09
R+7
303
- 0.232
201
102
One advantage of the PVI/Vote Index is that, at the same time as shining a light on Democrats who are lagging their districts, it also illuminates right-wing Republicans camped out in moderate districts, who should theoretically be vulnerable a good Democratic challenger because of their poor fit with their districts. If there's any doubt, check out which of these nutjobs who've overperformed their districts got defeated in 2008, and how many more got a serious scare.
Rep.
District
PVI
PVI rank
DW/N
Liberal rank
Difference
Ryan
WI-01
R+2
224
0.690
397
- 173
Feeney
FL-24
R+3
241
0.744
409
- 168
Chabot
OH-01
R+1
205.5
0.626
372
- 166.5
Garrett
NJ-05
R+4
261
0.771
417
- 156
Shadegg
AZ-03
R+6
288.5
0.903
429
- 140.5
Rohrabacher
CA-46
R+6
291
0.826
424.5
- 133.5
Kline
MN-02
R+3
233.5
0.616
365
- 131.5
Bilbray
CA-50
R+5
264
0.684
394
- 130
Fossella
NY-13
D+1
191
0.507
317
- 126
Walberg
MI-07
R+3
230.5
0.589
356.5
- 126
Weldon
FL-15
R+4
251.5
0.622
367.5
- 116
Campbell
CA-48
R+8
311
0.826
424.5
- 113.5
Bachmann
MN-06
R+5
273.5
0.663
385.5
- 112
Manzullo
IL-16
R+5
263
0.630
374
- 111
Franks
AZ-02
R+9
322
0.910
431
- 109
Tiberi
OH-12
R+1
210
0.508
318
- 108
Royce
CA-40
R+8
315
0.794
421
- 106
Roskam
IL-06
R+3
236.5
0.552
341
- 104.5
Mica
FL-07
R+4
251.5
0.583
355
- 103.5
Castle
DE-AL
D+7
142
0.291
245
- 103
Finally, one last table: the Republicans who are "underperforming" their very conservative districts. While there are a few moderates here (like the primaried-out Wayne Gilchrest), mostly it's semi-sane conservatives in some of the darkest-red districts in the nation. I'm keeping this list to 10, as either way, there's not much we can do about these guys, other than sit back and watch as the Club for Growth goes after them with chainsaws. (Note that Jerry Moran, who's vacating his seat to run for Senate, is one of them. His moderation, relatively speaking, may be an asset for him when running statewide.)
Rep.
District
PVI
PVI rank
DW/N
Liberal rank
Difference
W. Jones
NC-03
R+15
395
0.279
242
153
Simpson
ID-02
R+19
421
0.397
271
150
Moran
KS-01
R+20
427
0.442
286
141
Platts
PA-19
R+12
366
0.327
255.5
110.5
D. Young
AK-AL
R+14
387
0.420
278.5
108.5
Lucas
OK-03
R+18
414
0.493
310
104
Crenshaw
FL-04
R+16
407
0.489
308
99
Bachus
AL-06
R+25
433
0.538
335.5
97.5
Gilchrest
MD-01
R+10
335
0.254
238
97
Aderholt
AL-04
R+16
399
0.476
303
96
Much more discussion of the methodology and what this all may mean, over the flip.
Our friends at the Cook Political Report have released an updated Partisan Voting Index that now includes the results of the 2008 presidential election. They've also made a small change in the formula used to calculate PVIs, and I think it'll be instantly recognizable to SSPers:
To determine the national average for these latest ratings, we have taken the average Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote for 2004 and 2008, which is roughly 51.3 percent, and that of Republicans, which is roughly 48.7 percent. So, if John Kerry captured 55 percent of the vote in a district and Barack Obama carried 57 percent in the district four years later, the district would have a PVI score of roughly D+5. (Emphasis added.)
As we discussed at length, the old PVI formula compared district-level results for the past two presidential elections to nationwide results for only the most recent election. This choice sparked plenty of debate, and some folks even suggested we use our own "SVI" that would compare 2004 to 2004 and 2008 to 2008.
Fortunately, the debate has been resolved. As you can discern from the description above (the key part is in bold), Cook has decided to revise its methodology along the lines proposed by people here. Charlie Cook (an SSP reader, as is House editor David Wasserman) told me he wanted something that was "totally apples and apples," and I agree with the choice. Ultimately, this means that the new PVIs will be about two points bluer than under the old system - e.g., a district that would have been R+10 will now come in at R+8.
You can find the new PVIs by partisan rank in this PDF, as well as by member name and by state/district. There's also a giant-size map and a cool chart showing trends in the PVI over the last decade. (As you'd expect, the number of "competitive" districts, at least on the presidential level, has been shrinking.) Have fun!
Currently, Cook uses this formula for calculating PVI:
Cook PVI = ((Gore's 2000 two-party vote share in congressional district - Kerry's 2004 two-party vote share nationally) + (Kerry's 2004 two-party vote share in congressional district - Kerry's 2004 two-party vote share nationally))/2. Positive numbers are Democratic PVIs and negative numbers are Republican PVIs.
The entire problem with the Cook PVI is that it compares 2000 state results with 2004 national results. The USA as a whole should have a PVI of 0.0. But, by comparing 2000 state results with 2004 national results (apples to oranges) it screws things up and, in fact, the USA as a whole had a PVI of R+0.8 for 2005-2008. Using this same formula to calculate new PVIs after 2008 elections results in the USA as a whole having a PVI of D+2.5. This is totally screwy and defeats the purpose of the Cook PVI which is to show how much a congressional district is more democratic or republican than the nation as a whole.
The formula fix to correct this problem is simple:
PVI = (Kerry's 2004 two-party vote share in particular congressional district - Kerry's 2004 two-party vote share nationally) + (Obama's 2008 two-party vote share in congressional district - Obama's 2008 two-party vote share nationally)/2. Positive numbers are Democratic PVIs and negative numbers are Republican PVIs. Using this formula to calculate PVI, results in the USA as a whole having a PVI of 0. So, the numbers for each congressional district truly show how much more Democratic or Republican leaning the district is versus the nation as a whole, unlike the current Cook PVI numbers.
Past discussion of the Cook PVI, problems with it, and how to fix it are here, here, and here.
Using this formula and based on Swing State's Compilation of presidential results for all 435 Congressional Districts, I have calculated "Swing State" PVIs for each congressional district, for both before the 2008 Presidential Election and afterwards:
Based on Swing State's Compilation of presidential results for all 435 Congressional Districts, I have calculated the new Cook PVIs for each congressional district:
State
CD
Member
Party
Old PVI
New PVI
Change
AK
AL
Young
(R)
R+ 14.1
R+ 15.5
R+ 1.4
AL
1
Bonner
(R)
R+ 11.7
R+ 16.5
R+ 4.8
AL
2
Bright
(D)
R+ 13.1
R+ 19.0
R+ 5.9
AL
3
Rogers
(R)
R+ 4.3
R+ 11.3
R+ 6.9
AL
4
Aderholt
(R)
R+ 15.7
R+ 27.9
R+ 12.2
AL
5
Griffith
(D)
R+ 6.6
R+ 14.8
R+ 8.2
AL
6
Bachus
(R)
R+ 25.1
R+ 31.1
R+ 5.9
AL
7
Davis
(D)
D+ 16.9
D+ 15.0
R+ 1.9
AR
1
Berry
(D)
D+ 0.5
R+ 10.4
R+ 10.8
AR
2
Snyder
(D)
D+ 0.2
R+ 7.0
R+ 7.2
AR
3
Boozman
(R)
R+ 11.3
R+ 18.0
R+ 6.6
AR
4
Ross
(D)
D+ 0.7
R+ 9.3
R+ 10.1
AZ
1
Kirkpatrick
(D)
R+ 2.0
R+ 8.2
R+ 6.2
AZ
2
Franks
(R)
R+ 8.6
R+ 15.3
R+ 6.6
AZ
3
Shadegg
(R)
R+ 6.1
R+ 11.8
R+ 5.6
AZ
4
Pastor
(D)
D+ 14.4
D+ 10.7
R+ 3.7
AZ
5
Mitchell
(D)
R+ 3.9
R+ 7.2
R+ 3.4
AZ
6
Flake
(R)
R+ 12.2
R+ 16.8
R+ 4.6
AZ
7
Grijalva
(D)
D+ 10.0
D+ 3.6
R+ 6.3
AZ
8
Giffords
(D)
R+ 1.6
R+ 7.0
R+ 5.4
CA
1
Thompson
(D)
D+ 10.4
D+ 10.6
D+ 0.2
CA
2
Herger
(R)
R+ 12.5
R+ 13.1
R+ 0.5
CA
3
Lungren
(R)
R+ 6.7
R+ 8.0
R+ 1.3
CA
4
McClintock
(R)
R+ 10.9
R+ 12.4
R+ 1.4
CA
5
Matsui
(D)
D+ 13.6
D+ 12.8
R+ 0.8
CA
6
Woolsey
(D)
D+ 20.7
D+ 20.8
D+ 0.2
CA
7
Miller
(D)
D+ 19.1
D+ 16.8
R+ 2.3
CA
8
Pelosi
(D)
D+ 36.0
D+ 33.1
R+ 3.0
CA
9
Lee
(D)
D+ 37.6
D+ 34.7
R+ 3.0
CA
10
Tauscher
(D)
D+ 9.7
D+ 9.3
R+ 0.4
CA
11
McNerney
(D)
R+ 3.1
R+ 3.7
R+ 0.6
CA
12
Speier
(D)
D+ 22.5
D+ 20.4
R+ 2.1
CA
13
Stark
(D)
D+ 21.6
D+ 19.9
R+ 1.7
CA
14
Eshoo
(D)
D+ 18.2
D+ 18.3
D+ 0.0
CA
15
Honda
(D)
D+ 14.3
D+ 12.8
R+ 1.5
CA
16
Lofgren
(D)
D+ 16.1
D+ 13.5
R+ 2.6
CA
17
Farr
(D)
D+ 16.8
D+ 16.4
R+ 0.4
CA
18
Cardoza
(D)
D+ 3.3
D+ 1.2
R+ 2.1
CA
19
Radanovich
(R)
R+ 9.5
R+ 11.0
R+ 1.6
CA
20
Costa
(D)
D+ 4.8
D+ 2.4
R+ 2.4
CA
21
Nunes
(R)
R+ 12.7
R+ 15.1
R+ 2.4
CA
22
McCarthy
(R)
R+ 16.1
R+ 18.6
R+ 2.5
CA
23
Capps
(D)
D+ 9.6
D+ 9.4
R+ 0.1
CA
24
Gallegly
(R)
R+ 4.9
R+ 6.2
R+ 1.3
CA
25
McKeon
(R)
R+ 7.1
R+ 8.0
R+ 0.8
CA
26
Dreier
(R)
R+ 3.9
R+ 5.4
R+ 1.6
CA
27
Sherman
(D)
D+ 12.6
D+ 10.1
R+ 2.5
CA
28
Berman
(D)
D+ 24.7
D+ 21.0
R+ 3.8
CA
29
Schiff
(D)
D+ 12.6
D+ 12.1
R+ 0.4
CA
30
Waxman
(D)
D+ 20.0
D+ 15.4
R+ 4.6
CA
31
Becerra
(D)
D+ 30.2
D+ 26.0
R+ 4.2
CA
32
(D)
D+ 16.7
D+ 12.3
R+ 4.4
CA
33
Watson
(D)
D+ 35.9
D+ 32.2
R+ 3.8
CA
34
Roybal-Allard
(D)
D+ 22.8
D+ 19.4
R+ 3.4
CA
35
Waters
(D)
D+ 32.6
D+ 29.1
R+ 3.5
CA
36
Harman
(D)
D+ 10.7
D+ 8.8
R+ 2.0
CA
37
Richardson
(D)
D+ 27.4
D+ 24.1
R+ 3.3
CA
38
Napolitano
(D)
D+ 19.8
D+ 15.4
R+ 4.4
CA
39
Sanchez
(D)
D+ 12.7
D+ 9.8
R+ 2.9
CA
40
Royce
(R)
R+ 7.9
R+ 10.0
R+ 2.1
CA
41
Lewis
(R)
R+ 8.9
R+ 12.5
R+ 3.6
CA
42
Miller
(R)
R+ 10.2
R+ 12.0
R+ 1.9
CA
43
Baca
(D)
D+ 13.2
D+ 10.3
R+ 2.9
CA
44
Calvert
(R)
R+ 5.9
R+ 8.2
R+ 2.4
CA
45
Bono
(R)
R+ 3.1
R+ 5.7
R+ 2.6
CA
46
Rohrabacher
(R)
R+ 5.9
R+ 8.0
R+ 2.1
CA
47
Sanchez
(D)
D+ 4.6
D+ 1.7
R+ 2.9
CA
48
Campbell
(R)
R+ 7.9
R+ 8.3
R+ 0.3
CA
49
Issa
(R)
R+ 10.7
R+ 12.5
R+ 1.9
CA
50
Bilbray
(R)
R+ 4.4
R+ 5.4
R+ 1.1
CA
51
Filner
(D)
D+ 7.1
D+ 4.9
R+ 2.2
CA
52
Hunter
(R)
R+ 8.9
R+ 11.5
R+ 2.6
CA
53
Davis
(D)
D+ 12.3
D+ 11.8
R+ 0.4
CO
1
DeGette
(D)
D+ 18.0
D+ 18.4
D+ 0.4
CO
2
Udall
(D)
D+ 7.9
D+ 8.3
D+ 0.4
CO
3
Salazar
(D)
R+ 5.6
R+ 7.2
R+ 1.7
CO
4
Markey
(D)
R+ 8.4
R+ 8.2
D+ 0.1
CO
5
Lamborn
(R)
R+ 15.6
R+ 16.8
R+ 1.2
CO
6
Coffman
(R)
R+ 10.0
R+ 10.8
R+ 0.8
CO
7
Perlmutter
(D)
D+ 2.3
D+ 1.9
R+ 0.4
CT
1
Larson
(D)
D+ 14.2
D+ 10.0
R+ 4.2
CT
2
Courtney
(D)
D+ 7.5
D+ 3.7
R+ 3.8
CT
3
DeLauro
(D)
D+ 11.7
D+ 6.7
R+ 5.0
CT
4
Himes
(D)
D+ 5.4
D+ 2.9
R+ 2.5
CT
5
Murphy
(D)
D+ 3.6
R+ 0.1
R+ 3.7
DE
AL
Castle
(R)
D+ 6.4
D+ 4.4
R+ 2.0
FL
1
Miller
(R)
R+ 19.3
R+ 23.5
R+ 4.3
FL
2
Boyd
(D)
R+ 2.3
R+ 8.0
R+ 5.7
FL
3
Brown
(D)
D+ 16.2
D+ 15.7
R+ 0.6
FL
4
Crenshaw
(R)
R+ 16.3
R+ 19.0
R+ 2.7
FL
5
Brown-Waite
(R)
R+ 5.1
R+ 11.3
R+ 6.2
FL
6
Stearns
(R)
R+ 8.3
R+ 12.5
R+ 4.2
FL
7
Mica
(R)
R+ 4.3
R+ 8.9
R+ 4.7
FL
8
Grayson
(D)
R+ 3.3
R+ 4.7
R+ 1.4
FL
9
Bilirakis
(R)
R+ 4.3
R+ 8.4
R+ 4.2
FL
10
Young
(R)
D+ 1.2
R+ 3.2
R+ 4.4
FL
11
Castor
(D)
D+ 11.0
D+ 8.9
R+ 2.1
FL
12
Putnam
(R)
R+ 5.3
R+ 7.9
R+ 2.7
FL
13
Buchanan
(R)
R+ 4.0
R+ 7.9
R+ 4.0
FL
14
Mack
(R)
R+ 10.3
R+ 13.5
R+ 3.2
FL
15
Posey
(R)
R+ 4.3
R+ 7.9
R+ 3.7
FL
16
Rooney
(R)
R+ 2.3
R+ 6.9
R+ 4.7
FL
17
Meek
(D)
D+ 35.2
D+ 31.8
R+ 3.5
FL
18
Ros-Lehtinen
(R)
R+ 4.3
R+ 5.2
R+ 0.9
FL
19
Wexler
(D)
D+ 20.7
D+ 12.1
R+ 8.6
FL
20
Wasserman-Schultz
(D)
D+ 17.7
D+ 10.1
R+ 7.6
FL
21
Diaz-Balart
(R)
R+ 6.3
R+ 7.7
R+ 1.4
FL
22
Klein
(D)
D+ 3.2
R+ 1.7
R+ 4.9
FL
23
Hastings
(D)
D+ 29.2
D+ 25.8
R+ 3.4
FL
24
Kosmas
(D)
R+ 2.8
R+ 6.7
R+ 3.9
FL
25
Diaz-Balart
(R)
R+ 4.3
R+ 6.9
R+ 2.7
GA
1
Kingston
(R)
R+ 12.8
R+ 18.5
R+ 5.7
GA
2
Bishop
(D)
D+ 2.2
R+ 1.7
R+ 3.9
GA
3
Westmoreland
(R)
R+ 17.6
R+ 21.4
R+ 3.7
GA
4
Johnson
(D)
D+ 22.1
D+ 21.7
R+ 0.4
GA
5
Lewis
(D)
D+ 24.7
D+ 23.2
R+ 1.5
GA
6
Price
(R)
R+ 18.1
R+ 20.3
R+ 2.2
GA
7
Linder
(R)
R+ 18.3
R+ 19.0
R+ 0.7
GA
8
Marshall
(D)
R+ 8.3
R+ 12.5
R+ 4.2
GA
9
Deal
(R)
R+ 22.8
R+ 30.1
R+ 7.3
GA
10
Broun
(R)
R+ 12.8
R+ 17.0
R+ 4.2
GA
11
Gingrey
(R)
R+ 16.9
R+ 22.5
R+ 5.6
GA
12
Barrow
(D)
D+ 2.0
R+ 1.7
R+ 3.7
GA
13
Scott
(D)
D+ 9.7
D+ 12.2
D+ 2.4
HI
1
Abercrombie
(D)
D+ 7.0
D+ 8.5
D+ 1.5
HI
2
Hirono
(D)
D+ 9.7
D+ 11.6
D+ 1.9
IA
1
Braley
(D)
D+ 4.8
D+ 2.4
R+ 2.4
IA
2
Loebsack
(D)
D+ 6.6
D+ 4.7
R+ 1.9
IA
3
Boswell
(D)
D+ 1.5
R+ 1.1
R+ 2.6
IA
4
Latham
(R)
D+ 0.2
R+ 2.4
R+ 2.6
IA
5
King
(R)
R+ 8.4
R+ 11.5
R+ 3.1
ID
1
Minnick
(D)
R+ 19.0
R+ 20.2
R+ 1.1
ID
2
Simpson
(R)
R+ 18.9
R+ 20.0
R+ 1.1
IL
1
Rush
(D)
D+ 34.7
D+ 31.3
R+ 3.4
IL
2
Jackson
(D)
D+ 34.7
D+ 33.3
R+ 1.4
IL
3
Lipinski
(D)
D+ 10.3
D+ 8.1
R+ 2.2
IL
4
Gutierrez
(D)
D+ 30.6
D+ 29.2
R+ 1.5
IL
5
(D)
D+ 17.7
D+ 16.7
R+ 1.1
IL
6
Roskam
(R)
R+ 2.6
R+ 1.9
D+ 0.7
IL
7
Davis
(D)
D+ 34.7
D+ 31.8
R+ 2.8
IL
8
Bean
(D)
R+ 5.3
R+ 3.4
D+ 1.9
IL
9
Schakowsky
(D)
D+ 19.4
D+ 17.1
R+ 2.4
IL
10
Kirk
(R)
D+ 3.8
D+ 3.6
R+ 0.1
IL
11
Halvorson
(D)
R+ 1.0
R+ 3.4
R+ 2.4
IL
12
Costello
(D)
D+ 5.1
R+ 0.1
R+ 5.2
IL
13
Biggert
(R)
R+ 4.6
R+ 3.9
D+ 0.7
IL
14
Foster
(D)
R+ 4.4
R+ 3.7
D+ 0.7
IL
15
Johnson
(R)
R+ 6.1
R+ 8.7
R+ 2.6
IL
16
Manzullo
(R)
R+ 4.4
R+ 4.4
R+ 0.0
IL
17
Hare
(D)
D+ 4.6
D+ 0.6
R+ 3.9
IL
18
Schock
(R)
R+ 5.3
R+ 8.2
R+ 2.9
IL
19
Shimkus
(R)
R+ 8.1
R+ 11.7
R+ 3.6
IN
1
Visclosky
(D)
D+ 7.6
D+ 5.4
R+ 2.2
IN
2
Donnelly
(D)
R+ 4.1
R+ 4.7
R+ 0.6
IN
3
Souder
(R)
R+ 16.4
R+ 16.3
D+ 0.1
IN
4
Buyer
(R)
R+ 17.3
R+ 16.8
D+ 0.5
IN
5
Burton
(R)
R+ 19.5
R+ 19.3
D+ 0.1
IN
6
Pence
(R)
R+ 10.9
R+ 12.8
R+ 1.9
IN
7
Carson
(D)
D+ 8.5
D+ 11.2
D+ 2.7
IN
8
Ellsworth
(D)
R+ 8.5
R+ 10.7
R+ 2.2
IN
9
Hill
(D)
R+ 7.1
R+ 8.7
R+ 1.6
KS
1
Moran
(R)
R+ 20.4
R+ 25.3
R+ 4.9
KS
2
Jenkins
(R)
R+ 7.3
R+ 11.8
R+ 4.6
KS
3
Moore
(D)
R+ 4.4
R+ 5.7
R+ 1.3
KS
4
Tiahrt
(R)
R+ 12.1
R+ 15.9
R+ 3.8
KY
1
Whitfield
(R)
R+ 10.2
R+ 16.8
R+ 6.6
KY
2
Guthrie
(R)
R+ 12.9
R+ 17.3
R+ 4.4
KY
3
Yarmuth
(D)
D+ 2.3
D+ 0.1
R+ 2.2
KY
4
Davis
(R)
R+ 11.7
R+ 16.1
R+ 4.4
KY
5
Rogers
(R)
R+ 8.0
R+ 18.4
R+ 10.3
KY
6
Chandler
(D)
R+ 6.6
R+ 11.0
R+ 4.4
LA
1
Scalise
(R)
R+ 18.8
R+ 26.4
R+ 7.6
LA
2
Cao
(R)
D+ 27.9
D+ 21.6
R+ 6.3
LA
3
Melancon
(D)
R+ 4.9
R+ 14.1
R+ 9.2
LA
4
Fleming
(R)
R+ 6.6
R+ 13.3
R+ 6.7
LA
5
Alexander
(R)
R+ 9.5
R+ 16.3
R+ 6.9
LA
6
Cassidy
(R)
R+ 6.6
R+ 12.6
R+ 5.9
LA
7
Boustany
(R)
R+ 7.4
R+ 16.1
R+ 8.7
MA
1
Olver
(D)
D+ 14.8
D+ 11.1
R+ 3.7
MA
2
Neal
(D)
D+ 12.2
D+ 6.2
R+ 6.0
MA
3
McGovern
(D)
D+ 12.4
D+ 6.2
R+ 6.2
MA
4
Frank
(D)
D+ 19.0
D+ 11.8
R+ 7.2
MA
5
Tsongas
(D)
D+ 11.0
D+ 5.5
R+ 5.5
MA
6
Tierney
(D)
D+ 11.2
D+ 4.9
R+ 6.3
MA
7
Markey
(D)
D+ 19.0
D+ 12.8
R+ 6.2
MA
8
Capuano
(D)
D+ 33.0
D+ 29.6
R+ 3.4
MA
9
Lynch
(D)
D+ 15.3
D+ 8.4
R+ 6.9
MA
10
Delahunt
(D)
D+ 8.6
D+ 2.4
R+ 6.2
MD
1
Kratovil
(D)
R+ 9.8
R+ 14.9
R+ 5.1
MD
2
Ruppersberger
(D)
D+ 7.6
D+ 4.2
R+ 3.4
MD
3
Sarbanes
(D)
D+ 7.2
D+ 3.7
R+ 3.5
MD
4
Edwards
(D)
D+ 29.9
D+ 28.6
R+ 1.3
MD
5
Hoyer
(D)
D+ 9.1
D+ 8.3
R+ 0.8
MD
6
Bartlett
(R)
R+ 13.0
R+ 16.1
R+ 3.1
MD
7
Cummings
(D)
D+ 25.4
D+ 23.1
R+ 2.3
MD
8
Van Hollen
(D)
D+ 20.1
D+ 18.5
R+ 1.6
ME
1
Pingree
(D)
D+ 6.2
D+ 5.2
R+ 1.0
ME
2
Michaud
(D)
D+ 3.6
D+ 0.9
R+ 2.7
MI
1
Stupak
(D)
R+ 2.3
R+ 4.9
R+ 2.6
MI
2
Hoekstra
(R)
R+ 9.5
R+ 9.7
R+ 0.3
MI
3
Ehlers
(R)
R+ 9.2
R+ 8.5
D+ 0.7
MI
4
Camp
(R)
R+ 4.1
R+ 5.9
R+ 1.9
MI
5
Kildee
(D)
D+ 11.9
D+ 8.1
R+ 3.7
MI
6
Upton
(R)
R+ 2.3
R+ 3.2
R+ 0.8
MI
7
Schauer
(D)
R+ 2.3
R+ 4.4
R+ 2.1
MI
8
Rogers
(R)
R+ 2.1
R+ 4.2
R+ 2.1
MI
9
Peters
(D)
R+ 0.3
R+ 0.9
R+ 0.6
MI
10
Miller
(R)
R+ 4.3
R+ 7.7
R+ 3.4
MI
11
McCotter
(R)
R+ 1.3
R+ 2.9
R+ 1.6
MI
12
Levin
(D)
D+ 12.9
D+ 10.0
R+ 2.9
MI
13
Kilpatrick
(D)
D+ 32.1
D+ 29.3
R+ 2.8
MI
14
Conyers
(D)
D+ 33.7
D+ 30.8
R+ 2.8
MI
15
Dingell
(D)
D+ 12.9
D+ 10.7
R+ 2.2
MN
1
Walz
(D)
R+ 0.8
R+ 3.7
R+ 2.8
MN
2
Kline
(R)
R+ 2.9
R+ 6.5
R+ 3.6
MN
3
Paulsen
(R)
R+ 0.6
R+ 2.9
R+ 2.4
MN
4
McCollum
(D)
D+ 12.9
D+ 10.3
R+ 2.6
MN
5
Ellison
(D)
D+ 21.3
D+ 19.9
R+ 1.4
MN
6
Bachmann
(R)
R+ 5.2
R+ 9.5
R+ 4.3
MN
7
Peterson
(D)
R+ 5.5
R+ 7.5
R+ 2.0
MN
8
Oberstar
(D)
D+ 4.4
D+ 0.1
R+ 4.2
MO
1
Clay
(D)
D+ 25.5
D+ 24.2
R+ 1.3
MO
2
Akin
(R)
R+ 8.9
R+ 11.5
R+ 2.6
MO
3
Carnahan
(D)
D+ 7.6
D+ 5.1
R+ 2.5
MO
4
Skelton
(D)
R+ 10.7
R+ 16.8
R+ 6.1
MO
5
Cleaver
(D)
D+ 12.0
D+ 8.4
R+ 3.5
MO
6
Graves
(R)
R+ 4.9
R+ 9.7
R+ 4.9
MO
7
Blunt
(R)
R+ 14.2
R+ 19.7
R+ 5.4
MO
8
Emerson
(R)
R+ 10.9
R+ 17.3
R+ 6.5
MO
9
Luetkemeyer
(R)
R+ 6.6
R+ 11.0
R+ 4.4
MS
1
Childers
(D)
R+ 9.9
R+ 16.0
R+ 6.1
MS
2
Thompson
(D)
D+ 10.1
D+ 9.1
R+ 1.0
MS
3
Harper
(R)
R+ 13.9
R+ 17.5
R+ 3.6
MS
4
Taylor
(D)
R+ 16.3
R+ 22.0
R+ 5.8
MT
AL
Rehberg
(R)
R+ 10.7
R+ 9.3
D+ 1.4
NC
1
Butterfield
(D)
D+ 8.8
D+ 6.4
R+ 2.4
NC
2
Etheridge
(D)
R+ 2.5
R+ 4.4
R+ 1.9
NC
3
Jones
(R)
R+ 15.1
R+ 18.5
R+ 3.4
NC
4
Price
(D)
D+ 5.8
D+ 5.9
D+ 0.1
NC
5
Foxx
(R)
R+ 15.4
R+ 17.8
R+ 2.4
NC
6
Coble
(R)
R+ 17.4
R+ 20.3
R+ 2.9
NC
7
McIntyre
(D)
R+ 2.8
R+ 7.9
R+ 5.2
NC
8
Kissell
(D)
R+ 3.0
R+ 4.5
R+ 1.4
NC
9
Myrick
(R)
R+ 12.4
R+ 13.0
R+ 0.6
NC
10
McHenry
(R)
R+ 15.1
R+ 19.0
R+ 3.9
NC
11
Shuler
(D)
R+ 6.8
R+ 8.4
R+ 1.6
NC
12
Watt
(D)
D+ 11.5
D+ 13.2
D+ 1.6
NC
13
Miller
(D)
D+ 2.3
D+ 2.4
D+ 0.1
ND
AL
Pomeroy
(D)
R+ 13.0
R+ 12.5
D+ 0.5
NE
1
Fortenberry
(R)
R+ 11.6
R+ 13.0
R+ 1.4
NE
2
Terry
(R)
R+ 9.1
R+ 9.0
D+ 0.0
NE
3
Smith
(R)
R+ 23.6
R+ 26.4
R+ 2.8
NH
1
Shea-Porter
(D)
R+ 0.3
R+ 2.9
R+ 2.6
NH
2
Hodes
(D)
D+ 2.8
D+ 0.9
R+ 1.9
NJ
1
Andrews
(D)
D+ 14.2
D+ 9.6
R+ 4.6
NJ
2
Lobiondo
(R)
D+ 3.8
R+ 1.7
R+ 5.5
NJ
3
Adler
(D)
D+ 3.6
R+ 2.9
R+ 6.5
NJ
4
Smith
(R)
R+ 0.7
R+ 7.9
R+ 7.2
NJ
5
Garrett
(R)
R+ 4.1
R+ 9.5
R+ 5.4
NJ
6
Pallone
(D)
D+ 11.5
D+ 5.1
R+ 6.4
NJ
7
Lance
(R)
R+ 0.5
R+ 4.4
R+ 3.9
NJ
8
Pascrell
(D)
D+ 11.7
D+ 7.6
R+ 4.0
NJ
9
Rothman
(D)
D+ 13.2
D+ 6.6
R+ 6.6
NJ
10
Payne
(D)
D+ 34.2
D+ 30.8
R+ 3.3
NJ
11
Frelinghuysen
(R)
R+ 5.6
R+ 10.0
R+ 4.4
NJ
12
Holt
(D)
D+ 7.4
D+ 2.6
R+ 4.8
NJ
13
Sires
(D)
D+ 22.9
D+ 18.7
R+ 4.2
NM
1
Heinrich
(D)
D+ 2.3
D+ 2.1
R+ 0.2
NM
2
Teague
(D)
R+ 5.9
R+ 8.2
R+ 2.3
NM
3
Lujan
(D)
D+ 5.9
D+ 4.4
R+ 1.5
NV
1
Berkley
(D)
D+ 8.9
D+ 7.8
R+ 1.1
NV
2
Heller
(R)
R+ 8.2
R+ 7.8
D+ 0.4
NV
3
Titus
(D)
D+ 1.2
R+ 0.9
R+ 2.1
NY
1
Bishop
(D)
D+ 3.3
R+ 2.7
R+ 6.0
NY
2
Israel
(D)
D+ 8.0
D+ 1.6
R+ 6.3
NY
3
King
(R)
D+ 2.1
R+ 6.2
R+ 8.3
NY
4
McCarthy
(D)
D+ 9.4
D+ 3.4
R+ 6.0
NY
5
Ackerman
(D)
D+ 17.6
D+ 10.0
R+ 7.6
NY
6
Meeks
(D)
D+ 38.1
D+ 33.2
R+ 4.8
NY
7
Crowley
(D)
D+ 27.7
D+ 23.6
R+ 4.1
NY
8
Nadler
(D)
D+ 27.8
D+ 19.7
R+ 8.1
NY
9
Weiner
(D)
D+ 13.8
D+ 2.1
R+ 11.7
NY
10
Towns
(D)
D+ 40.5
D+ 35.3
R+ 5.3
NY
11
Clarke
(D)
D+ 39.8
D+ 35.3
R+ 4.5
NY
12
Velazquez
(D)
D+ 33.5
D+ 30.2
R+ 3.3
NY
13
McMahon
(D)
D+ 0.8
R+ 6.7
R+ 7.5
NY
14
Maloney
(D)
D+ 26.3
D+ 23.1
R+ 3.2
NY
15
Rangel
(D)
D+ 43.0
D+ 38.7
R+ 4.2
NY
16
Serrano
(D)
D+ 43.6
D+ 38.8
R+ 4.8
NY
17
Engel
(D)
D+ 20.7
D+ 15.8
R+ 4.9
NY
18
Lowey
(D)
D+ 10.1
D+ 6.3
R+ 3.8
NY
19
Hall
(D)
R+ 1.6
R+ 5.2
R+ 3.6
NY
20
(D)
R+ 2.6
R+ 4.9
R+ 2.3
NY
21
Tonko
(D)
D+ 8.8
D+ 4.0
R+ 4.8
NY
22
Hinchey
(D)
D+ 5.9
D+ 3.7
R+ 2.2
NY
23
McHugh
(R)
R+ 0.3
R+ 3.4
R+ 3.1
NY
24
Arcuri
(D)
R+ 0.5
R+ 4.4
R+ 3.9
NY
25
Maffei
(D)
D+ 3.3
D+ 0.1
R+ 3.2
NY
26
Lee
(R)
R+ 3.7
R+ 8.3
R+ 4.6
NY
27
Higgins
(D)
D+ 6.5
D+ 0.9
R+ 5.6
NY
28
Slaughter
(D)
D+ 14.6
D+ 13.0
R+ 1.7
NY
29
Massa
(D)
R+ 4.9
R+ 8.0
R+ 3.1
OH
1
Driehaus
(D)
R+ 0.5
R+ 1.4
R+ 0.9
OH
2
Schmidt
(R)
R+ 13.2
R+ 15.5
R+ 2.2
OH
3
Turner
(R)
R+ 2.6
R+ 6.7
R+ 4.1
OH
4
Jordan
(R)
R+ 13.5
R+ 17.1
R+ 3.6
OH
5
Latta
(R)
R+ 10.0
R+ 11.2
R+ 1.2
OH
6
Wilson
(D)
D+ 0.2
R+ 4.7
R+ 4.9
OH
7
Austria
(R)
R+ 5.8
R+ 9.5
R+ 3.6
OH
8
Boehner
(R)
R+ 12.5
R+ 16.6
R+ 4.1
OH
9
Kaptur
(D)
D+ 8.9
D+ 7.0
R+ 1.9
OH
10
Kucinich
(D)
D+ 8.4
D+ 5.7
R+ 2.7
OH
11
Fudge
(D)
D+ 32.9
D+ 30.2
R+ 2.7
OH
12
Tiberi
(R)
R+ 0.8
R+ 2.4
R+ 1.6
OH
13
Sutton
(D)
D+ 6.6
D+ 3.1
R+ 3.5
OH
14
LaTourette
(R)
R+ 2.3
R+ 5.2
R+ 2.8
OH
15
Kilroy
(D)
R+ 0.8
R+ 1.4
R+ 0.6
OH
16
Boccieri
(D)
R+ 3.7
R+ 6.2
R+ 2.5
OH
17
Ryan
(D)
D+ 14.3
D+ 9.5
R+ 4.9
OH
18
Space
(D)
R+ 5.9
R+ 9.0
R+ 3.1
OK
1
Sullivan
(R)
R+ 12.6
R+ 18.2
R+ 5.6
OK
2
Boren
(D)
R+ 4.5
R+ 16.2
R+ 11.7
OK
3
Lucas
(R)
R+ 17.6
R+ 26.2
R+ 8.6
OK
4
Cole
(R)
R+ 13.1
R+ 20.2
R+ 7.1
OK
5
Fallin
(R)
R+ 11.8
R+ 15.2
R+ 3.4
OR
1
Wu
(D)
D+ 5.6
D+ 5.5
R+ 0.1
OR
2
Walden
(R)
R+ 11.1
R+ 12.3
R+ 1.2
OR
3
Blumenauer
(D)
D+ 17.5
D+ 16.4
R+ 1.1
OR
4
Defazio
(D)
R+ 0.1
R+ 0.8
R+ 0.7
OR
5
Schrader
(D)
D+ 0.7
R+ 1.1
R+ 1.8
PA
1
Brady
(D)
D+ 36.1
D+ 32.7
R+ 3.3
PA
2
Fattah
(D)
D+ 39.1
D+ 35.3
R+ 3.9
PA
3
Dahlkemper
(D)
R+ 1.3
R+ 5.2
R+ 3.9
PA
4
Altmire
(D)
R+ 2.6
R+ 8.7
R+ 6.2
PA
5
Thompson
(R)
R+ 9.7
R+ 12.0
R+ 2.3
PA
6
Gerlach
(R)
D+ 2.2
D+ 1.6
R+ 0.6
PA
7
Sestak
(D)
D+ 3.8
D+ 1.1
R+ 2.7
PA
8
Murphy
(D)
D+ 3.3
R+ 0.7
R+ 3.9
PA
9
Shuster
(R)
R+ 14.9
R+ 19.3
R+ 4.4
PA
10
Carney
(D)
R+ 7.6
R+ 11.0
R+ 3.3
PA
11
Kanjorski
(D)
D+ 5.6
D+ 1.6
R+ 4.0
PA
12
Murtha
(D)
D+ 4.5
R+ 3.4
R+ 8.0
PA
13
Schwartz
(D)
D+ 8.1
D+ 4.1
R+ 4.0
PA
14
Doyle
(D)
D+ 21.8
D+ 16.5
R+ 5.3
PA
15
Dent
(R)
D+ 1.5
R+ 0.4
R+ 1.9
PA
16
Pitts
(R)
R+ 11.2
R+ 10.2
D+ 1.0
PA
17
Holden
(D)
R+ 6.6
R+ 8.4
R+ 1.8
PA
18
Murphy
(R)
R+ 2.0
R+ 8.5
R+ 6.4
PA
19
Platts
(R)
R+ 12.2
R+ 14.0
R+ 1.8
RI
1
Kennedy
(D)
D+ 16.4
D+ 11.1
R+ 5.3
RI
2
Langevin
(D)
D+ 12.6
D+ 6.5
R+ 6.1
SC
1
Brown
(R)
R+ 9.7
R+ 13.0
R+ 3.3
SC
2
Wilson
(R)
R+ 9.0
R+ 11.3
R+ 2.3
SC
3
Barrett
(R)
R+ 13.9
R+ 19.0
R+ 5.1
SC
4
Inglis
(R)
R+ 14.6
R+ 17.1
R+ 2.5
SC
5
Spratt
(D)
R+ 5.6
R+ 9.2
R+ 3.6
SC
6
Clyburn
(D)
D+ 11.3
D+ 9.1
R+ 2.2
SD
AL
Herseth
(D)
R+ 10.0
R+ 11.3
R+ 1.4
TN
1
Roe
(R)
R+ 13.9
R+ 23.4
R+ 9.5
TN
2
Duncan
(R)
R+ 11.2
R+ 18.7
R+ 7.5
TN
3
Wamp
(R)
R+ 8.6
R+ 15.8
R+ 7.2
TN
4
Davis
(D)
R+ 3.3
R+ 15.6
R+ 12.3
TN
5
Cooper
(D)
D+ 6.0
D+ 0.6
R+ 5.4
TN
6
Gordon
(D)
R+ 3.8
R+ 15.0
R+ 11.2
TN
7
Blackburn
(R)
R+ 11.9
R+ 19.8
R+ 8.0
TN
8
Tanner
(D)
D+ 0.5
R+ 8.5
R+ 9.0
TN
9
Cohen
(D)
D+ 18.1
D+ 20.2
D+ 2.1
TX
1
Gohmert
(R)
R+ 16.9
R+ 22.7
R+ 5.8
TX
2
Poe
(R)
R+ 11.8
R+ 15.2
R+ 3.4
TX
3
Johnson
(R)
R+ 17.3
R+ 16.0
D+ 1.3
TX
4
Hall
(R)
R+ 16.8
R+ 23.5
R+ 6.8
TX
5
Hensarling
(R)
R+ 15.3
R+ 19.0
R+ 3.7
TX
6
Barton
(R)
R+ 14.8
R+ 16.7
R+ 1.9
TX
7
Culberson
(R)
R+ 15.3
R+ 15.0
D+ 0.3
TX
8
Brady
(R)
R+ 19.3
R+ 26.7
R+ 7.4
TX
9
Green
(D)
D+ 20.7
D+ 19.8
R+ 0.9
TX
10
McCaul
(R)
R+ 12.9
R+ 12.5
D+ 0.5
TX
11
Conaway
(R)
R+ 25.3
R+ 30.7
R+ 5.4
TX
12
Granger
(R)
R+ 14.3
R+ 19.0
R+ 4.7
TX
13
Thornberry
(R)
R+ 24.8
R+ 31.2
R+ 6.4
TX
14
Paul
(R)
R+ 14.3
R+ 20.5
R+ 6.3
TX
15
Hinojosa
(D)
D+ 2.7
D+ 0.8
R+ 1.9
TX
16
Reyes
(D)
D+ 9.0
D+ 7.5
R+ 1.4
TX
17
Edwards
(D)
R+ 17.8
R+ 22.5
R+ 4.8
TX
18
Jackson-Lee
(D)
D+ 23.2
D+ 21.2
R+ 2.0
TX
19
Neugebauer
(R)
R+ 24.8
R+ 28.5
R+ 3.8
TX
20
Gonzalez
(D)
D+ 7.7
D+ 5.6
R+ 2.1
TX
21
Smith
(R)
R+ 16.3
R+ 16.0
D+ 0.3
TX
22
Olson
(R)
R+ 14.3
R+ 15.0
R+ 0.7
TX
23
Rodriguez
(D)
R+ 4.0
R+ 6.4
R+ 2.4
TX
24
Marchant
(R)
R+ 15.3
R+ 14.0
D+ 1.3
TX
25
Doggett
(D)
D+ 1.7
D+ 3.1
D+ 1.4
TX
26
Burgess
(R)
R+ 12.3
R+ 15.5
R+ 3.2
TX
27
Ortiz
(D)
R+ 1.3
R+ 4.4
R+ 3.2
TX
28
Cuellar
(D)
R+ 0.8
R+ 2.7
R+ 1.9
TX
29
Green
(D)
D+ 7.7
D+ 5.3
R+ 2.4
TX
30
Johnson
(D)
D+ 25.7
D+ 24.8
R+ 0.9
TX
31
Carter
(R)
R+ 16.4
R+ 16.2
D+ 0.2
TX
32
Sessions
(R)
R+ 10.8
R+ 10.4
D+ 0.3
UT
1
Bishop
(R)
R+ 21.8
R+ 23.9
R+ 2.1
UT
2
Matheson
(D)
R+ 17.0
R+ 17.4
R+ 0.4
UT
3
Chaffetz
(R)
R+ 26.3
R+ 28.3
R+ 1.9
VA
1
Wittman
(R)
R+ 9.0
R+ 9.7
R+ 0.8
VA
2
Nye
(D)
R+ 5.8
R+ 7.2
R+ 1.4
VA
3
Scott
(D)
D+ 18.2
D+ 17.7
R+ 0.6
VA
4
Forbes
(R)
R+ 4.8
R+ 6.9
R+ 2.1
VA
5
Perriello
(D)
R+ 5.7
R+ 7.7
R+ 2.0
VA
6
Goodlatte
(R)
R+ 11.5
R+ 14.3
R+ 2.8
VA
7
Cantor
(R)
R+ 10.7
R+ 11.3
R+ 0.6
VA
8
Moran
(D)
D+ 13.6
D+ 13.5
R+ 0.1
VA
9
Boucher
(D)
R+ 7.4
R+ 13.8
R+ 6.4
VA
10
Wolf
(R)
R+ 5.4
R+ 4.7
D+ 0.7
VA
11
Connolly
(D)
R+ 0.8
R+ 0.1
D+ 0.7
VT
AL
Welch
(D)
D+ 9.1
D+ 10.8
D+ 1.7
WA
1
Inslee
(D)
D+ 7.7
D+ 6.5
R+ 1.2
WA
2
Larsen
(D)
D+ 2.8
D+ 0.9
R+ 1.9
WA
3
Baird
(D)
D+ 0.2
R+ 2.7
R+ 2.9
WA
4
Hastings
(R)
R+ 13.2
R+ 15.4
R+ 2.2
WA
5
McMorris
(R)
R+ 7.0
R+ 9.3
R+ 2.3
WA
6
Dicks
(D)
D+ 5.7
D+ 2.4
R+ 3.2
WA
7
McDermott
(D)
D+ 30.3
D+ 29.0
R+ 1.2
WA
8
Reichert
(R)
D+ 2.5
D+ 0.9
R+ 1.7
WA
9
Smith
(D)
D+ 5.6
D+ 2.9
R+ 2.7
WI
1
Ryan
(R)
R+ 2.3
R+ 4.9
R+ 2.6
WI
2
Baldwin
(D)
D+ 13.4
D+ 12.5
R+ 0.9
WI
3
Kind
(D)
D+ 2.8
D+ 1.4
R+ 1.4
WI
4
Moore
(D)
D+ 20.6
D+ 19.2
R+ 1.4
WI
5
Sensenbrenner
(R)
R+ 12.5
R+ 14.8
R+ 2.3
WI
6
Petri
(R)
R+ 4.9
R+ 6.7
R+ 1.8
WI
7
Obey
(D)
D+ 1.8
R+ 0.1
R+ 1.9
WI
8
Kagen
(D)
R+ 3.9
R+ 4.2
R+ 0.3
WV
1
Mollohan
(D)
R+ 5.6
R+ 11.5
R+ 5.9
WV
2
Capito
(R)
R+ 5.1
R+ 10.2
R+ 5.1
WV
3
Rahall
(D)
D+ 0.5
R+ 9.0
R+ 9.5
WY
AL
Lummis
(R)
R+ 19.5
R+ 22.0
R+ 2.5
The formula I used for calculating the Old and New Cook PVIs are as follows:
Old Cook PVI = ((Bush's 2000 two-party vote share in congressional district - Bush's 2004 two-party vote share nationally) + (Bush's 2004 two-party vote share in congressional district - Bush's 2004 two-party vote share nationally))/2. Postive numbers are Republican PVIs and negative numbers are Democratic PVIs (or you could get the same reults using the Democratic candidate's numbers and then positive numbers would be D PVIs and negative numbers would be R PVIs).
New Cook PVI = ((Bush's 2004 two-party vote share in congressional district - McCain's 2008 two-party vote share nationally) + (McCain's 2008 two-party vote share in congressional district - McCain's 2008 two-party vote share nationally))/2.
The Cook PVI formula is very flawed, IMHO, in that part of the formula compares how results from a particular district in 2004 with how McCain did nationally in 2008. Because McCain did much worse nationally than Bush did in 2004, this makes districts look much more Republican than they would be with a truly neutral formula (if the USA as a whole had a PVI of 0.0). Under the Cook PVI formula, the USA as a whole had a PVI of R+0.8 for 2005-2008 and a PVI of D+2.5 currently. This is totally screwy and defeats the purpose of the Cook PVI which is to show how much a congressional district is more democratic or republican than the nation as a whole. To adjust for this flaw in the formula, mentally add D+2.5 to a district to see where it "really" is now, and add D+3.3 to all districts to see how much a district changed as a result of the 2008 election.
Swing State Project is pleased to announce a final and official tally of the presidential election results in all 435 congressional districts. As you might recall, when we last left off a few weeks ago, we were still six districts shy, with only Nassau County, NY and Tuscaloosa County, AL outstanding. With these last few counties relinquishing their data, we can wrap up those last few districts, making Swing State Project the first outlet anywhere, blogosphere or elsewhere, to provide a full public release of presidential election results by CD... not just of percentages, but a transparent display of the underlying precincts, if you're interested in delving that deep. If you want to bookmark the summary of the percentages for all districts for future reference, click here.
If you're looking for additional detail about previously-discussed districts, see waves one, two, three, four, five, and six. For a truly ridiculous level of detail, each state's database is accessible through our master database.
As you can see, AL-06 was one of our roughest districts, in about a three-way tie with AL-04 and TX-13 for worst Obama performance. And while Obama won Nassau County on Long Island by a decent margin, he didn't improve on Kerry's numbers by much. In fact, the 2008 numbers in both NY-03 (the Republican part of Long Island, relatively speaking) and NY-05 (a mix of Nassau County's wealthiest areas and working-class white and Asian parts of Queens) matched the 2004 numbers exactly. The more diverse NY-02 and NY-04 saw larger improvements.
As with the last few waves, our commitment to accuracy compels us to issue a few more minor adjustments as we've refined our databases and/or gotten newer numbers. And, for one last time, thanks to jeffmd, Democratic Luntz, californianintexas, Benawu, Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson, and all the other SSP contributors who helped out anonymously... you all put the "crowd" in crowdsourcing.
The waves keep getting smaller and smaller, as we wend our way closer to the conclusion of our massive presidential results-by-congressional district crowdsourcing project. For those of you who are counting, that leaves only six districts that we need to complete (AL-06 and AL-07, NY-02, NY-03, NY-04, and NY-05) in order to be not just the first outlet to make all this information public, but just plain the first outlet, period.
The geography nerds among you might be thinking, hey, that looks like we're only two counties short of completion: Tuscaloosa County, AL, and Nassau County, NY. (You're almost right: we also need Coosa County, AL, but it has only 12,000 people so I'm making a "close enough" call on AL-03 until we actually wrangle some data out of them.) Our ground forces in Alabama are already on the case of Tuscaloosa and Coosa Counties, but, to expedite matters, we need to switch on the SSP Batsignal over Gotham: we need an NYC-area correspondent to make the trek out to Mineola and have a date with the Nassau County Board of Elections' copy machine. If you're available to take this mission, please e-mail our intrepid publisher, DavidNYC (see the right column) and he'll tell you what we need.
If you want to see a summary of the whole list of districts, click here. Waves one, two, three, four, and five provide additional detail, and for a truly ridiculous level of detail, each state's database is accessible through our master database.
Points of interest in this wave include AL-04, which, to our surprise, plummets past the West Texas districts to grab the dubious distinction of Obama's worst performance (at 22%). This district used to send a Democrat to Congress until 1996, and even Gore got 37% here... but this is Alabama's whitest and most rural district, where the southern end of the Appalachians and Birmingham exurbs meet.
Aside from some stagnation in NY-27 (the blue-collar white parts of Buffalo), everything else here is good news: huge swings in both Denver and its conservative suburbs, and even bigger swings in Indiana, where we not just flipped IN-02 (South Bend) but won it pretty convincingly.
As with our previous wave, our resident numbers guru jeffmd has been refining our figures as new data continues to trickle in, so we have another corrections table with 16 revised districts over the flip. Again, nothing major, but we know that many SSP readers are fans of utter and complete accuracy.
The presidential-results-by-congressional-district crowdsourcing project at Swing State Project just keeps rolling along, and we're really getting close to total completion. We're adding 31 more districts today, having scored precinct-level data from some of the largest counties still outstanding (most notably, Queens County, NY, and Wayne County, MI). That leaves only 18 districts with problem counties left to go! (Nassau and Erie Counties, we're lookin' at you...)
As always, big thanks to all SSP readers who've contributed to this project, with extra thanks for this batch to Democratic Luntz and jeffmd, who rocks an Excel pivot table like nobody's business. If you want to see a handy list of all districts in one place, look here. If you want a fuller picture, waves one, two, three, and four are here. And if you want an absolutely crushing level of detail, just click on our master database and then on a particular state to see each district in all its precinct-level glory.
So what are the highlights and lowlights for this installment? As we've seen earlier, California just went from dark blue to even bluer, and that seeped all the way down to some of its reliably red districts (CA-24 in Ventura County went narrowly for Obama... which hopefully will convince Elton Gallegly of the many botched retirement attempts to actually get off the pot this time... and we even came close in CA-19, which stitches together the Sierras and the whiter parts of the Central Valley). A lot of that movement may have to do with California's huge Latino population, fed up with the GOP's increasing reliance on immigrant-bashing; parallel movement is seen in Texas, where two mostly-Latino districts (TX-15 and TX-27) also show wide swings in the Democratic direction.
Also, as we've seen in other districts, Indiana had some of the biggest Democratic swings in the nation, simply by virtue of the Democrats showing up and competing there for once. Check out IN-06. Remember, this is the district represented by Mike Pence, arch-wingnut who just got promoted from leading the RSC to the #3 position in the whole GOP caucus... and now he's in a district that McCain won by just 6 points.
On the bad side of the ledger, we're seeing continued declines in some of the blue-collar white-ethnic districts in the NYC area. These districts suffered some of the biggest declines in that nation from Gore to Kerry, and I thought that might be a temporary 9/11 effect since those districts were some of the ones hardest hit. However, we've continued to lose ground in NY-09 (the old-school parts of Brookyln and Queens), and are stagnant in NJ-04 (Ocean and Monmouth Counties, where people from NY-09 go to retire). Not that it matters too much; these districts are outweighed by the overall blue trends in these already-blue states. And in NY-09 they still managed to kick out state senator Serphin Maltese to finally flip control of the New York senate; Obama's performance may have to do more with 2008-specific racism/latent PUMAism than an overall trend.
Also troubling is what's going on in eastern Ohio, where we lost ground in OH-06 and OH-17. It's not hard to explain -- OH-06 is considered the Appalachian part of Ohio, while OH-17 is centered on Youngstown, a place similar to Pittsburgh's collar counties where the once-strong union base is dying off or drifting away as the manufacturing sector evaporates. This is more worrisome since Ohio is a swing state where every vote counts, but as this part of the state is hollowing out while the Columbus and Cincinnati areas are starting to move into our column, it's not a killer.
Finally, I'm making good on my promise of some updates, based on further refining of early-vote or split-precinct data, or finding more data from small counties where we'd previously made a "close enough" judgment. As you'll see, the numbers haven't moved that much, with a few exceptions (perhaps most significantly in IL-18, which we originally thought Obama had won by a few thousand votes but turns out he lost by a few hundred; see also improvements in FL-06 and FL-07, SC-01 and SC-06). This will only be of interest to people who are real sticklers for accuracy or who are keeping their own spreadsheets on this subject. (Of course, since we're talking about Swing State Project here, that probably describes most of our readership!) The updates tables is over the flip...
Hardly a day - hardly a post - goes by here at the Swing State Project without a reference to the Cook Political Report's Partisan Vote Index, or PVI for short. In the wake of the 2008 elections, SSP's pres-by-CD project has spurred a lot of discussion about how the PVI is calculated and why it's calculated the way it is.
Quite a few people people had a hard time believing my explanation of the math behind the PVI. But you don't have to take my word for it - this is how the Almanac of American Politics explains things:
Cook Partisan Voting Index. Refers to the Partisan Voting Index (PVI) as used by Charlie Cook, Washington's foremost political handicapper. The PVI is designed to provide a quick overall assessment of generic partisan strength. For this volume, the PVI includes an average of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections in the district as the partisan indicator. The PVI value is calculated by a comparison of the district average for the party nominee, compared to the 2004 national value for the party nominee. The calculations are based upon the two-party vote. The national values for 2004 are George W. Bush 51.2% and John Kerry 48.8%. The PVI value indicates a district with a partisan base above the national value for that party's 2004 presidential nominee. Thus a district with an R+15 is a district that voted 15 percentage points (as an average of its 2000 and 2004 presidential vote) higher for Bush than the national value of 51.2%. Similarly, a district with a D+15 is a district that voted 15 percentage points (as an average of its 2000 and 2004 presidential vote) higher for Kerry than the national value of 48.8%. An X +00 indicates an evenly balanced district. (Emphasis added.)
The boldface sentences confirm my understanding of how PVI works. But why should it be calculated this way? I agree with the majority sentiment that it seems to make more sense to compare 2000 district performance with 2000 nationwide performance, not 2004 nationwide performance. This isn't as big of a deal with the two Bush elections because they were both so close, but comparing Kerry's 2004 district numbers with Obama's nationwide numbers produces some pretty serious gaps. I'd be curious to know what sort of justifications or rationales anyone can come up with for the status quo.
In the meantime, some have suggested computing an "SVI" - a "Swing State Project Voting Index," comparing 2004 to 2004 and 2008 to 2008. In fact, CalifornianInTexas has already gone ahead and started calculating these numbers. For the most part, these will be more favorable to Dems, as the big Kerry minus Obama splits are removed from the equation.
So, I'm asking the community: Should we use the "SVI"? Should it be in addition to the PVI? Are there any pitfalls if we do so? Any reasons not to? Let's hear your thoughts!
Since we now know the presidential results in most congressional districts for 2008, we now possess all the tools we need to calculate the new PVIs.
Charlie Cook's official results will be out in a few months, but unlike in 2004 (where results from 2000 had to be fitted to the new congressional districts) there's no reason we shouldn't jump the gun and have our own figures ready. And there's every reason to want to know who's representing their districts and who's a lot more vulnerable than they used to be.
I'm therefore going to attempt to calculate the new PVIs for the states listed in the diary title. They were picked because we have all the results from districts in those states, and because they represent around 20% of America's congressioanl districts and I'm too lazy right now to do more than that in a sitting.
My methodology conforms to that given in David NYC's comment to DGM's diary. My figures are taken from this spreadsheet. My figures are approximate and you should probably ignore everything beyond the decimal point, because I'm using data rounded to the nearest whole number for the district-by-district results.
When we at SSP first hatched the idea of compiling some numbers for presidential election results for congressional districts, we were thinking we'd be lucky to get to 60 or maybe 100 districts. After all, we couldn't track down precinct-level data for hundreds of counties, sort out what precinct goes into what district, and pick apart large metro counties with thousands and thousands of precincts... could we?
Well, with the aid of SSP's crack cadre of some of the brightest and most tenacious elections geeks out there -- in particular the relentless number cruncher jeffmd and master BoE cajoler Democratic Luntz -- we're closing in on completing all 435 districts. With another 54 added to the pile today, we're near the 90% mark, with only 51 remaining incomplete. If you want to see all district percentages so far, the link is here; you can also check out the diaries where we released the numbers in more detail here, here, and here.
Some points of interest to check out in this batch: look at PA-06, with some of the steepest improvement in all of Pennsylvania. Any question why Jim Gerlach may be planning to cash it in and run for governor in 2010? It might be because his district just shot past PA-07 and PA-08 to become the bluest all-suburban district in the Philly area.
We have data for most of upstate New York (except for Erie County, where Buffalo is), and it's striking that Obama improved on Kerry at a much greater clip upstate than in the NYC metro area. One thing that might give us some optimism heading into the NY-20 special election is the nearly 6-point improvement, as well as the fact that the Dem candidate actually won the district in the first time since, well, probably Barry Goldwater. But this is pretty typical across upstate NY, as we also flipped NY-23 and NY-24, moved NY-25 from swing to pretty safe D, and almost even won in New York's reddest district of NY-29. Compare this with, say, the whiter urban districts, like NY-08 or especially NY-13 (Staten Island and white ethnic parts of Brooklyn), where Obama lost narrowly while barely improving on Kerry's numbers, and thus nearly overtaking NY-29 as New York's reddest district.
The biggest improvements here, as in previous installments are in the Mountain West. This is plain to see in Colorado, not just in the 2nd (where the improvement over 2000 is gigantic, although that may have to do with the huge Nader effect among Boulder's granola-munching crowd) but also in the 4th, where Obama lost by less than a point where Gore lost by 20. And although we didn't come even close in Utah, some of the biggest percentage gains were there. Look for UT-03 to lose its worst-PVI-in-the-nation status, as Obama made up 9 points there on Kerry.
Is there any bad news to report here? Well, we came oh-so-close to flipping OH-14 in Cleveland's suburbs (fewer than 1,000 votes), while not moving the numbers much there. And we lost ground in AL-05, the Appalachian portion of Alabama, and PA-04, which, like PA-12, is in the collar counties around Pittsburgh where the Rust Belt fades into the Appalachians.
Probably least appetizing are the numbers out of Oklahoma, but even it provides some interesting insights into the changes from the old Democratic coalition to the current Democratic coalition. Most of the state stayed in neutral over the decade, but compare OK-02 (rural NE Oklahoma around Muskogee) vs. OK-05 (Oklahoma City). We're getting absolutely hammered in the 2nd, a traditionally Yellow Doggish area that Gore almost won. On the other hand, we shot up in the 5th, the most cosmopolitan part of the state.
So what's left to do? Our main task is, at this point, getting data from counties who have been unresponsive or are charging an arm and a leg for it. If you're interested in helping out, check out this diary for a primer; here's our database of elections boards to contact. And, as always, here's our master crowdsourcing database... although, as you might notice, most of those blanks have been filled in! Thanks to you guys, of course.
One final caveat: these numbers are subject to change slightly, as we refine the data. In fact, in a few days I'll be posting a list of several dozen updated districts. None of these changes should amount to more than a fraction of a percentage point, but caution is warranted where a fraction of a percent would make a lot of difference in how the district is perceived (for instance, PA-03, where a very small revision could make all the difference in terms of McCain's 17-vote margin in the district).
A number of people who've expressed interest in helping gather election data so that we can compile presidential results by CD have asked for a more detailed guide. So here's what I suggest:
2) Find a county where the three right-hand columns (F, G & H) are all blank. (If there's information in any of those, it means someone has already requested data from that county, or at least investigated it.)
3) Call the phone number listed in column D. (If there's no phone number, please look it up and paste it into column D.) When I call, this is what I like to say:
Hi. I'm a researcher looking for detailed election results from the 2008 election. Whom might I speak with about this?
Once I have the right person, this is the request I make:
I'm interested in precinct-level results for the Presidential and Congressional races in your county for the 2008 election. Are you able to send that to me?
That's really you need to ask for - this request is very basic and should be readily understood. If you encounter any confusion, report back here in comments and we'll try to figure out what the misunderstanding is.
4) At this point, the response you might get will vary. Some election officials will email you on the spot, some will only mail you hardcopy versions, and some might even insist on mailing you a CD. Still others might ask you to fill out a particular request form, or fax them a signed letter, or file a Freedom of Information request.
Just ask what you need to do and you should be given straightforward instructions. If you follow these, you should get the data you're looking for without a problem. Note: If the county you talk to can only send hardcopies but you don't have access to a scanner, let us know in comments.
5) Side note: Some counties - and this really cheeses me off, but there's not much we can do - may require a payment for the data. If that happens, I recommend you do NOT pay for the data. Rather, find out how much the data would cost. Then open up this spreadsheet again and type your username into column F and the cost into column G. We'll look into making purchases later.
6) Once you get the data, please upload your files to Scribd. (You'll need to create an account there first.) Then, post the URL(s) in column H. That way we'll know we have the data, and we'll know where to find it.
That's really all there is to it. If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask in comments.
The good news: We've scrounged up precinct-level election results for about twenty counties that were on our list in order to complete the presidential results by CD. The bad news: We still need data from another ninety.
The bottom line is that we've downloaded from every website that lets you download, and we've emailed every county that lets you email. The remaining counties either don't have websites or email address, or just haven't responded to emails. So we need to start making phone calls.
I think the netroots - and really, we're just talking about a single small blog here - could make a big impact by releasing a complete set of data. Before we started, I never thought that doing so would be possible, but now I believe it's in our grasp. Finishing this would demonstrate that a dedicated band of volunteers can tackle a project most would assume would require a bunch of professionals and a lot of money.
It would also demonstrate that when it comes to data analysis, the Internet really has ushered in a new era of openness, transparency and accessibility. Indeed, our work has already been favorably cited in places like the Guardian and Roll Call, and in local newspapers as well. We're breaking barriers, people!
Alright, enough with the attempts at rousing exhortations. There are still phone calls to make - the full list is here. If you have some free time during the day and can make a few calls, this short list of "high value" municipalities is a good place to start:
Jurisdiction
CDs Covered
Would Let Us Complete
New York City, NY
13
12
Wayne, MI
4
4
Santa Clara, CA
4
3
Ventura, CA
2
2
Fountain, IN
2
2
Fall River town, MA
2
2
St. Louis City, MO
2
2
Josephine, OR
2
2
Cass, TX
2
2
Getting precinct-level data for these counties/cities/towns (especially those toward the top of the list) is key, but all are important. If you want to try another route, start with your home state. If your home state is not on the list, then just pick some counties at random.
Remember that when you call, you need to ask for precinct-level results for both the presidential race and any United States House races within the county in question. (Without the latter data set, we can't figure out which precincts are assigned to which CD.)
Also note that if you see a notation in the "Data Requested" column, or a price listed in the "Cost" column, that means we've already made contact with that county, so there's no need to call them. (Mostly we're waiting to figure out if we can find a sugar daddy to pay for the data from the counties which charge - grr! The nerve of them!)
If you do make a phone call and request the data, please make a note of it in the proper column. If the county emails it to you, great - just upload it to Scribd or Google Docs and post the URL in the spreadsheet. If they offer to mail it to you, please make a note of your request date (along with your name or user name) so that we can follow up if need be. And if they quote you a price, hold off on ordering - just note the price in the proper column.
Again, the full list of counties we need data for is right here. Let's do this thing!
Over the holidays, SSP readers seemed to have a lot of fun with the vulnerable House Republicans and vulnerable House Democrats threads. This left me wondering, as so many things seem to do, "is there a way to quantify that?" In other words, is there a data-driven way to approach the question instead of just relying on perceptions (and also to make sure that potentially overlooked races don't fall through the cracks)?
Here's what I tried. It's actually a bit reminiscent of my PVI/Vote Index, in that it measures representative performance against the district's lean, except here performance is measured by the rep's margin in the last election. (The data for many of the 2008 electoral margins is available in the recent "How'd We Do?" post, conveniently arranged in order from closest to least close.)
Look at the top 20 most vulnerable Republicans to see how it works. As pretty much everyone would expect, Anh Cao in LA-02 is the most vulnerable GOPer. He had the 5th weakest margin of any Republican who survived 2008 (beating Bill Jefferson by 2.7%, behind only Fleming (0.4%), McClintock (0.6%), Calvert (2.4%), and Luetkemeyer (2.5%). Needless to say, he's in the GOP-held district with the least favorable PVI (D+28, using "old," i.e. 00-04, PVI). At #2 is Jim Gerlach in PA-06; he had the 9th worst margin at 4.2%, and he's in the 6th worst district for a GOPer at D+2. And so on...
District
Rep.
Margin rating
PVI rating
Total
LA-02
Cao
5
1
6
PA-06
Gerlach
9
6
15
IL-10
Kirk
13
4
17
WA-08
Reichert
16
5
21
MI-11
McCotter
17
16
33
MN-03
Paulsen
22
12
34
NJ-07
Lance
24
13
37
OH-12
Tiberi
34
14
48
CA-50
Bilbray
11
40
51
MN-06
Bachmann
6
46.5
52.5
FL-25
Diaz-Balart
18
37
55
CA-44
Calvert
3
55
58
AL-03
Rogers
25
34
59
LA-04
Fleming
1
60
61
FL-15
Posey
31
30.5
61.5
MN-02
Kline
39
23
62
CA-26
Dreier
33
30.5
63.5
MO-09
Luetkemeyer
4
60
64
NY-26
Lee
38
27
65
PA-15
Dent
58
8
66
Is this much different from SSP readers' predictions? No, not much; it's the wisdom of crowds at work. Still, I see a few names on there that didn't get much of any mention in our prediction thread: especially Pat Tiberi in OH-12 (34th worst margin at 12.6%, 14th worst district at R+1) who seems to fly under the radar every single freakin' election. Other names revealed by this list that wouldn't necessarily be intuitive picks include Thad McCotter, John Kline, Mike Rogers (AL), and Bill Posey, who benefited from our big-time recruitment failure in the FL-15 open seat.
Here's the flipside: the Democratic seats that seem likeliest to flip, based on 2008 numbers. Some of these may not be much cause for alarm; Chet Edwards, for instance, is probably not in any imminent danger except in case of a 1994-sized event, but he's probably doomed to uncomfortable margins for all eternity. On the other hand, time will tell whether Walt Minnick can quickly fortify himself, or if we're only renting ID-01 for a couple years.
