I was able to squeeze some time out of my hectic schedule to make my routine election predictions for 2012. After these results, I will have my “Partisan Factor” predictions for California, basically merging a national and a California diary into one.

For the national-level results, I used a combination of state polls and national polls, and factored in the results from 2008 to come up with my predictions. For the California-level results, I used registration and presidential, Senatorial, and gubernatorial results to come up with my “Partisan Factor”, which is how I predict each competitive district will go.

Here are my predictions, signed, sealed, and delivered, beginning with the presidential race. Switches from 2008 are noted with an asterisk.

State	Result	D Electoral Votes	R Electoral Votes
Alabama	Romney by 19.23		9
Alaska	Romney by 20.43		3
Arizona	Romney by 6.84		11
Arkansas	Romney by 22.87		6
California	Obama by 19.92	55
Colorado	Obama by 2.59	9
Connecticut	Obama by 15.74	7
Delaware	Obama by 26.09	3
District of Columbia	Obama by 87.03	3
Florida	Romney by 0.26*		29
Georgia	Romney by 6.71		16
Hawaii	Obama by 36.69	4
Idaho	Romney by 24.19		4
Illinois	Obama by 18.81	20
Indiana	Romney by 5.43*		11
Iowa	Obama by 2.79	6
Kansas	Romney by 13.81		6
Kentucky	Romney by 14.55		8
Louisiana	Romney by 17.52		8
Maine	Obama by 15.29	4
Maryland	Obama by 22.39	10
Massachusetts	Obama by 21.84	11
Michigan	Obama by 5.18	16
Minnesota	Obama by 8.34	10
Mississippi	Romney by 12.06		6
Missouri	Romney by 8.3		10
Montana	Romney by 5.11		3
Nebraksa	Romney by 13.41		5
Nevada	Obama by 3.64	6
New Hampshire	Obama by 3.01	4
New Jersey	Obama by 14.33	14
New Mexico	Obama by 11.66	5
New York	Obama by 26.87	29
North Carolina	Romney by 0.46*		15
North Dakota	Romney by 19.11		3
Ohio	Obama by 2.96	18
Oklahoma	Romney by 29.59		7
Oregon	Obama by 9.78	7
Pennsylvania	Obama by 6.09	20
Rhode Island	Obama by 22.98	4
South Carolina	Romney by 7.87		9
South Dakota	Romney by 6.65		3
Tennessee	Romney by 13.95		11
Texas	Romney by 14.9		38
Utah	Romney by 33.45		6
Vermont	Obama by 37.56	3
Virginia	Obama by 2.05	13
Washington	Obama by 12.05	12
West Virginia	Romney by 12.99		5
Wisconsin	Obama by 5.8	10
Wyoming	Romney by 31.23		3
Total		303	235

Next up is the short and sweet table of governor races. Pickups are noted with an asterisk.

State	Result
Delaware	Safe Markell (D)
Indiana	Pence (D) by 7.87
Missouri	Nixon (D) by 13
Montana	Daines (R) by 0.5*
New Hampshire	Hassan (D) by 3
North Carolina	McCrory (R) by 14.25*
North Dakota	Dalrymple (R) by 35
Utah	Safe Herbert (R)
Vermont	Shumlin (D) by 34.00
Washington	Inslee (D) by 0.5
West Virginia	Tomblin (D) by 21
Total Governors	30 Republicans, 19 Democrats, 1 Independent

Now for the Senate races. I don’t know if it will happen, but I predict a status quo. Again, the good old asterisk for the pickups.

State	Result
Arizona	Carmona (D) by 0.5*
California	Feinstein (D) by 19
Connecticut	Murphy (D) by 4.67
Delaware	Safe Carper (D)
Florida	Nelson (D) by 7.43
Hawaii	Hirono (D) by 18.5
Indiana	Donnelly (D) by 3*
Maine	King (I) by 18*
Maryland	Cardin (D) by 26.09
Massachusetts	Warren (D) by 4.67*
Michigan	Stabenow (D) by 13.5
Minnesota	Klobuchar (D) by 30
Mississippi	Safe Wicker (R)
Missouri	McCaskill (D) by 6.25
Montana	Rehberg (R) by 1.13*
Nebraska	Fischer (R) by 13*
Nevada	Heller (R) by 5.14
New Jersey	Menendez (D) by 18
New Mexico	Heinrich (D) by 9.67
New York	Gillibrand (D) by 43
North Dakota	Berg (R) by 5*
Ohio	Brown (D) by 6.14
Pennsylvania	Casey (D) by 5.14
Rhode Island	Whitehouse (D) by 25.5
Tennessee	Safe Corker (R)
Texas	Cruz (R) by 21.5
Utah	Safe Hatch (R)
Vermont	Safe Sanders (I)
Virginia	Kaine (D) by 1.57
Washington	Cantwell (D) by 16.5
West Virginia	Manchin (D) by 39
Wisconsin	Baldwin (D) by 2.67
Wyoming	Safe Barrasso (R)
Total Senators	51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, 2 Indpendents

Finally, the competitive House races, which will result in a Dem gain of 3 seats for a 239-196 GOP majority.

District	Result
AZ-01	Paton (R) by 1.88
AZ-02	Barber (D) by 5.63
AZ-09	Sinema (D) by 2.56
CA-03	Garamendi (D) by 15
CA-07	Bera (D) by 1.25
CA-09	McNerney (D) by 1.25
CA-10	Denham (R) by 1.13
CA-24	Capps (D) by 2.5
CA-26	Brownley (D) by 0.5
CA-36	Bono Mack (R) by 0.63
CA-41	Takano (D) by 6.25
CA-47	Lowenthal (D) by 15
CA-52	Peters (D) by 0.31
CO-03	Tipton (R) by 5
CO-06	Coffman (R) by 4.38
CO-07	Perlmutter (D) by 7.5
CT-05	Esty (D) by 3.13
FL-02	Southerland (R) by 6.25
FL-10	Webster (R) by 5
FL-16	Buchanan (R) by 10
FL-18	West (R) by 4.59
FL-22	Frankel (D) by 3.89
FL-26	Rivera (R) by 2
GA-12	Barrow (D) by 4.25
IL-08	Duckworth (D) by 8.75
IL-10	Dold (R) by 1.88
IL-11	Foster (D) by 2.81
IL-12	Enyart (D) by 4.94
IL-13	Gill (D) by 0.63
IL-17	Bustos (D) by 0.63
IN-02	Walorski (R) by 12.5
IN-08	Bucshon (R) by 10
IA-01	Braley (D) by 15
IA-02	Loebsack (D) by 10
IA-03	Latham (R) by 3.75
IA-04	King (R) by 3.44
KY-06	Chandler (D) by 5.19
MD-06	Delaney (D) by 5.5
MA-06	Tisei (R) by 5.5
MI-01	McDowell (D) by 1.31
MI-03	Amash (R) by 11.25
MI-11	Bentivolio (R) by 6.25
MN-02	Kline (R) by 15
MN-06	Bachmann (R) by 6.25
MN-08	Nolan (D) by 2.56
MT-AL	Daines (R) by 8.67
NV-03	Heck (R) by 9
NV-04	Tarkanian (R) by 0.56
NH-01	Guinta (R) by 5.31
NH-02	Kuster (D) by 4.85
NJ-03	Runyan (R) by 10.63
NY-01	Bishop (D) by 8.69
NY-11	Grimm (R) by 13.38
NY-18	Hayworth (R) by 4.75
NY-19	Gibson (R) by 3.75
NY-21	Owens (D) by 2.06
NY-24	Maffei (D) by 1.56
NY-25	Slaughter (D) by 9.38
NY-27	Collins (R) by 2.06
NC-07	Rouzer (R) by 0.63
NC-08	Hudson (R) by 10
NC-11	Meadows (R) by 12.5
ND-AL	Cramer (R) by 12.25
OH-06	Johnson (R) by 4.38
OH-16	Renacci (R) by 1.88
OK-02	Mullin (R) by 11.63
PA-06	Gerlach (R) by 15
PA-08	Fitzpatrick (R) by 11.25
PA-12	Critz (D) by 1.88
RI-01	Cicilline (D) by 2.83
SD-AL	Noem (R) by 12
TN-04	DesJarlais (R) by 5
TX-14	Weber (R) by 6.25
TX-23	Gallego (D) by 1
UT-04	Love (R) by 8.19
VA-02	Regel (R) by 10
WA-01	DelBene (D) by 5.25
WV-03	Rahall (D) by 12.5
WI-07	Duffy (R) by 6.25
WI-08	Ribble (R) by 15
Total Representatives	239 Republicans, 196 Democrats

Now onto my final California predictions:

U.S. House

District	Registration	CPVI	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	PF
CA-03	R+2.7	D+2.8	R+6.3	R+3.0	R+2.3
CA-07	R+8.0	R+0.9	R+9	R+4.1	R+5.5
CA-09	R+1.4	D+4.3	R+3.8	R+2.2	R+0.8
CA-10	R+8.3	R+3.8	R+12.3	R+9.6	R+8.6
CA-24	R+6.4	D+4.3	R+6	R+6.5	R+3.7
CA-26	R+5.6	D+4.0	R+6.3	R+7.3	R+3.8
CA-36	R+8.9	R+2.1	R+10.2	R+10.2	R+7.9
CA-41	R+5.7	D+5.9	R+1.6	R+0.3	R+0.4
CA-47	R+0.4	D+6.3	R+0.3	R+1.5	D+0.7
CA-52	R+7.6	D+2.5	R+9.2	R+11.0	R+6.3

State Senate (odd-numbered districts)

District	Registration	CPVI	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	PF
SD-05	R+13.2	D+0.6	R+8.8	R+6.0	R+6.9
SD-19	R+0.8	D+7.9	R+2.2	R+3.4	D+0.4
SD-27	R+3.8	D+4.7	R+5.7	R+7.2	R+3.0
SD-31	R+8.0	D+3.8	R+5.4	R+4.0	R+3.4
SD-39	R+2.8	D+8.6	R+2.0	R+3.8	R+0.0

State Assembly

District	Registration	CPVI	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	PF
AD-08	R+5.9	EVEN	R+7.9	R+3.0	R+4.2
AD-16	R+4.1	D+8.3	R+2.8	R+3.9	R+0.6
AD-21	R+2.6	D+2.2	R+8.9	R+5.7	R+3.8
AD-32	D+3.2	D+0.3	R+9.6	R+11.1	R+4.3
AD-40	R+8.5	D+0.2	R+8.4	R+6.3	R+5.8
AD-44	R+8.0	D+2.5	R+8.2	R+9.5	R+5.8
AD-60	R+12.5	R+1.1	R+10.7	R+9.2	R+8.4
AD-61	R+4.3	D+8.7	R+0.1	D+1.1	D+1.4
AD-65	R+8.8	R+1.9	R+10.6	R+11.2	R+8.1
AD-66	R+5.1	D+2.8	R+6.4	R+7.5	R+4.1
AD-78	D+0.2	D+12.0	D+3.4	D+1.4	D+4.3

Assuming districts with a PF of less than R+7 are Dem wins (California’s Cook PVI is D+7), then the composition of the delegations will be as follows:

U.S. House: 37 DEM, 16 GOP

(Districts 3, 7, 9, 24, 26, 41, 47 and 52 go DEM; 10 and 36 go GOP)

Safe DEM (29): 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 46, 51, 53

Safe GOP (14): 1, 4, 8, 21, 22, 23, 25, 31, 39, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50

State Senate: 28 DEM, 12 GOP

(Districts 5, 19, 27, 31, and 39 all go DEM)

Safe DEM (10): 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 25, 33, 35

Safe GOP (5): 1, 21, 23, 29, 37

Up in 2014: 13 DEM, 7 GOP

State Assembly: 55 DEM, 25 GOP

(Districts 8, 16, 21, 32, 40, 44, 61, 66, and 78 go DEM; 60 and 65 go GOP)

Safe DEM (46): 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 79, 80

Safe GOP (23): 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 23, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 42, 55, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

I know it’s been a month since the conventions, but I have been very busy in that time.

Here are the updated districts in my “Outlook” series. From my formula predictions on all states’ elections, which I will show later, I determined which congressional districts were competitive and added the 10th congressional district and also the 78th Assembly district to the list.

My predictions for all California races, Congress and state legislature, will also come soon.

U.S. House

District	Registration	CPVI	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	PF
CA-03	R+3.4	D+2.8	R+6.3	R+3.0	R+2.5
CA-07	R+8.4	R+0.9	R+9	R+4.1	R+5.6
CA-09	R+2.8	D+4.3	R+3.8	R+2.2	R+1.1
CA-10	R+8.5	R+3.8	R+12.3	R+9.6	R+8.6
CA-16	D+0.3	D+5.2	R+7.2	R+2.6	R+1.1
CA-21	R+0.2	R+0.7	R+11.1	R+4.8	R+4.2
CA-24	R+7.3	D+4.3	R+6	R+6.5	R+3.9
CA-26	R+6.0	D+4.0	R+6.3	R+7.3	R+3.9
CA-36	R+9.7	R+2.1	R+10.2	R+10.2	R+8.1
CA-41	R+6.9	D+5.9	R+1.6	R+0.3	R+0.7
CA-47	R+1.0	D+6.3	R+0.3	R+1.5	D+0.6
CA-52	R+11.2	D+2.5	R+9.2	R+11.0	R+7.2

State Senate (odd-numbered districts)

District	Registration	CPVI	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	PF
SD-05	R+8.0	D+0.6	R+8.8	R+6.0	R+7.0
SD-19	R+1.6	D+7.9	R+2.2	R+3.4	D+0.2
SD-27	R+5.4	D+4.7	R+5.7	R+7.2	R+3.4
SD-31	R+6.2	D+3.8	R+5.4	R+4.0	R+3.7
SD-39	R+3.8	D+8.6	R+2.0	R+3.8	R+0.3

State Assembly

District	Registration	CPVI	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	PF
AD-08	R+6.3	EVEN	R+7.9	R+3.0	R+4.3
AD-16	R+4.9	D+8.3	R+2.8	R+3.9	R+0.8
AD-21	R+2.4	D+2.2	R+8.9	R+5.7	R+3.7
AD-32	D+3.4	D+0.3	R+9.6	R+11.1	R+4.3
AD-40	R+9.2	D+0.2	R+8.4	R+6.3	R+5.9
AD-44	R+8.4	D+2.5	R+8.2	R+9.5	R+5.9
AD-60	R+13.2	R+1.1	R+10.7	R+9.2	R+8.6
AD-61	R+5.6	D+8.7	R+0.1	D+1.1	D+1.0
AD-65	R+9.6	R+1.9	R+10.6	R+11.2	R+8.3
AD-66	R+5.9	D+2.8	R+6.4	R+7.5	R+4.3
AD-78	D+0.8	D+12.0	D+3.4	D+1.4	D+4.4

Here are the updated districts in my “Outlook” series. I replaced the 2008-President numbers with a “Cook PVI” based only on 2008. With this number, calculating the “Partisan Factor” (PF) became a bit easier, simply averaging the CPVI, 2010 Governor and Senate races, and the difference between the DEM and GOP registration numbers. The PF’s changed slightly, but the overall numbers for U.S. House, State Senate, and State Assembly remain the same.

For the 2010 races, the numbers represent the difference between the parties given their share of the 2-party vote. For example, in CA-03, Fiorina won 51-49 and Brown won 53.8-46.2.

U.S. House

District	“Incumbent”	DEM	GOP	Margin	Cook PVI	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	PF
CA-03	Garamendi	41.6	32.3	D+9.3	D+2.8	R+2.0	D+7.6	D+4.4
CA-07	Lungren	39.2	38.2	D+1.0	R+0.9	R+7.4	D+5.4	R+0.5
CA-09	McNerney	44.6	35.8	D+8.8	D+4.3	D+3.0	D+9.2	D+6.3
CA-16	Costa	47.9	32.7	D+15.2	D+5.2	R+3.8	D+8.4	D+6.3
CA-21	None	45.4	34.4	D+11.0	R+0.7	R+11.6	D+4.0	D+0.7
CA-24	Capps	38.9	35.1	D+3.8	D+4.3	R+1.4	D+0.6	D+1.8
CA-26	None	40.9	35.2	D+5.7	D+4.0	R+2.0	R+1.0	D+1.7
CA-31	None	41.0	35.9	D+5.1	D+4.0	D+2.2	D+8.2	D+4.9
CA-36	Bono Mack	39.0	40.7	R+1.7	R+2.1	R+11.0	R+6.8	R+5.4
CA-41	None	41.8	34.9	D+6.9	D+5.9	D+7.4	D+13.0	D+8.3
CA-46	Sanchez	44.3	31.7	D+12.6	D+6.3	D+10.0	D+10.6	D+9.9
CA-47	None	42.4	31.6	D+10.8	D+6.3	D+8.6	D+9.4	D+8.8
CA-52	Bilbray	32.7	35.4	R+2.7	D+2.5	R+7.8	R+8.4	R+4.1

State Senate (odd-numbered districts)

District	DEM	GOP	Margin	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	Cook PVI	PF
SD-05	41.7	38.7	D+3.0	R+7.0	D+1.6	D+0.6	R+1.4
SD-19	43.6	31.3	D+12.3	R+6.2	D+6.2	D+7.9	D+2.3
SD-27	40.4	34.6	D+5.8	R+0.8	R+0.8	D+4.7	D+0.8
SD-31	39.7	36.7	D+3.0	R+0.2	D+5.6	D+3.8	D+3.3
SD-39	37.7	30.4	D+7.3	D+6.6	D+6.0	D+8.6	D+6.8

State Assembly

District	DEM	GOP	Margin	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	Cook PVI	PF
AD-08	40.1	37.5	D+2.6	R+5.2	D+7.6	EVEN	D+1.6
AD-16	39.8	34.1	D+5.7	D+5.0	D+5.8	D+23.4	D+6.3
AD-21	46.3	34.1	D+12.2	R+7.2	D+1.2	D+11.5	R+0.5
AD-31	49.1	31.6	D+17.5	D+3.2	D+14.6	D+20.8	D+10.3
AD-32	46.6	32.5	D+14.1	R+8.3	R+8.6	D+7.7	R+5.4
AD-40	38.0	38.5	R+0.5	R+6.0	D+1.0	D+7.6	R+1.6
AD-44	38.9	37.0	D+1.9	R+5.8	R+5.4	D+12.0	R+4.0
AD-60	36.6	39.0	R+2.4	R+10.8	R+4.8	D+5.0	R+6.7
AD-61	42.6	34.5	D+8.1	D+10.4	D+15.8	D+24.0	D+13.1
AD-65	36.0	37.3	R+1.3	R+10.6	R+8.8	D+3.4	R+8.2
AD-66	38.2	35.4	D+2.8	R+2.2	R+1.4	D+12.6	R+0.6

If (and this is a big if) the races go according to the Partisan Factors, then the composition of the delegations will be as follows:

U.S. House: 36 DEM, 17 GOP

Safe DEM (27): 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 51, 53

Safe GOP (13): 1, 4, 8, 10, 22, 23, 25, 39, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50

State Senate: 27 DEM, 13 GOP

Safe DEM (10): 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 25, 33, 35

Safe GOP (5): 1, 21, 23, 29, 37

Up in 2014: 13 DEM, 7 GOP

State Assembly: 50 DEM, 30 GOP

Safe DEM (46): 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 78, 79, 80

Safe GOP (23): 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 21, 23, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 55, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

Picking up on a diary from 2006 about tracking competitive districts, I continued the tracking for the 2008 and 2010 elections. With the new district data, I can start the “Outlook” series for 2012.

In 2008 I tried a “Partisan Factor” (PF), inspired by a comment in the aforementioned diary, in which I averaged the margins in registration, 2002-Gov., 2004-Pres., 2004-Sen., and 2006-Sen. In 2010 I used just the registration and the 2008 presidential numbers. For 2012 I will try a new “Partisan Factor” using the registration margin, 2008-Pres., 2010-Sen., and 2010-Gov, with different weights.

Also, for the 2008 and 2010 races, the numbers represent the difference between the parties given their share of the 2-party vote. For example, in CA-03, Obama won 56.3-43.7, Fiorina won 51-49, and Brown won 53.8-46.2.

Here is the lowdown on these districts.

U.S. House

District	“Incumbent”	DEM	GOP	Margin	2008 Pres.	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	PF
CA-03	Garamendi	42.1	32.8	D+9.3	D+12.6	R+2.0	D+7.6	D+3.9
CA-07	Lungren	39.4	38.6	D+0.8	D+5.5	R+7.4	D+5.4	R+0.5
CA-09	McNerney	45.3	35.8	D+9.5	D+15.5	D+3.0	D+9.2	D+6.9
CA-16	Costa	48.3	33.4	D+14.9	D+17.8	R+3.8	D+8.4	D+3.9
CA-21	None	46.2	35.3	D+10.9	D+5.8	R+11.6	D+4.0	R+1.9
CA-24	Capps	39.2	35.6	D+3.6	D+15.5	R+1.4	D+0.6	D+0.8
CA-26	Gallegly (?)	41.1	35.5	D+5.6	D+14.9	R+2.0	R+1.0	D+0.0
CA-31	Dreier/Lewis (?)	41.1	37.0	D+4.1	D+14.9	D+2.2	D+8.2	D+5.6
CA-36	Bono Mack	39.0	41.4	R+2.4	D+3.1	R+11.0	R+6.8	R+7.7
CA-41	None	41.9	35.3	D+6.6	D+18.9	D+7.4	D+13.0	D+10.3
CA-46	Sanchez	44.8	32.1	D+12.7	D+19.2	D+10.0	D+10.6	D+11.0
CA-47	None	42.6	32.0	D+10.6	D+19.3	D+8.6	D+9.4	D+9.7
CA-52	Bilbray	32.9	35.9	R+3.0	D+12.1	R+7.8	R+8.4	R+6.6

State Senate (odd-numbered districts)

District	DEM	GOP	Margin	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	2008 Pres.	PF
SD-05	42.6	38.2	D+4.4	R+7.0	D+1.6	D+8.4	R+1.4
SD-19	44.0	31.8	D+12.2	R+6.2	D+6.2	D+22.5	D+2.3
SD-27	40.9	34.6	D+6.3	R+0.8	R+0.8	D+16.4	D+0.8
SD-31	39.8	37.1	D+2.7	R+0.2	D+5.6	D+14.5	D+3.3
SD-39	38.1	30.9	D+7.2	D+6.6	D+6.0	D+13.8	D+6.8

State Assembly

District	DEM	GOP	Margin	2010 Sen.	2010 Gov.	2008 Pres.	PF
AD-08	40.4	37.9	D+2.5	R+5.2	D+7.6	D+7.1	D+1.6
AD-16	40.1	34.4	D+5.7	D+5.0	D+5.8	D+23.4	D+6.3
AD-21	47.9	33.0	D+14.9	R+7.2	D+1.2	D+11.5	R+0.5
AD-31	49.7	32.9	D+16.8	D+3.2	D+14.6	D+20.8	D+10.3
AD-32	47.5	33.5	D+14.0	R+8.3	R+8.6	D+7.7	R+5.4
AD-40	39.6	38.0	D+1.6	R+6.0	D+1.0	D+7.6	R+1.6
AD-44	39.2	37.2	D+2.0	R+5.8	R+5.4	D+12.0	R+4.0
AD-60	36.6	39.7	R+3.1	R+10.8	R+4.8	D+5.0	R+6.7
AD-61	42.8	34.7	D+8.1	D+10.4	D+15.8	D+24.0	D+13.1
AD-65	36.6	38.0	R+1.4	R+10.6	R+8.8	D+3.4	R+8.2
AD-66	38.4	35.6	D+2.8	R+2.2	R+1.4	D+12.6	R+0.6

If (and this is a big if) the races go according to the Partisan Factors, then the composition of the delegations will be as follows:

U.S. House: 35 DEM, 18 GOP

Safe DEM (26): 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44, 51, 53

Safe GOP (14): 1, 4, 8, 10, 22, 23, 25, 39, 40, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50

State Senate: 27 DEM, 13 GOP

Safe DEM (10): 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 25, 33, 35

Safe GOP (5): 1, 21, 23, 29, 37

Up in 2014: 13 DEM, 7 GOP

State Assembly: 50 DEM, 30 GOP

Safe DEM (46): 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 78, 79, 80

Safe GOP (23): 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 21, 23, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 55, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

It has been a tough news weekend for the United States.

I’ve been blocking out news coverage today and cringing every time I hear a partisan or pundit prognosticate about the decline of America, or our supposed shuffle closer to doomsday.

My heart breaks hard every time I think about the selfless men and women we lost in Afghanistan this weekend. Brothers and sisters alike, it seems almost trivial to sit here tonight and type–a freedom they have won for me–while so many are facing grim realities and long, tense moments of combat half a world away.

It’s easy to lose focus of who you are and what you stand for in times like these.

Tonight, I’m reminded of a famous speech given by a wartime American president from Illinois (emphasis added):

“It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

It is easy to cower in the face of disappointment or unspeakable tragedy, to cave to the demands of those playing the temporary game of political opportunism. In these times, we should not forget who we are:

We believe “that government of the people, by the people, for the people” shall reflect the values and humanity of those people. We believe that our markets and our people come together every day, and that their tenacity and innovation are our greatest national assets. Government can’t solve all of our problems, and neither can unchecked greed: We believe that both free markets and free people are essential for a free country and a prosperous posterity. And we are reminded that our young men and women shouldn’t have to die to prove their country’s greatness, but rather, should serve as living proof.

Military might is not the only measure of national strength; private doubts about our financial acuity do not change the reality of our economic strength. The media and Super PACs may reap a windfall from tripping up the United States of America–that’s their freedom, in this country we call home.

You cannot quantify, cannot put a premium on the resilience, the grittiness, the resolve of the American people. Whether we’re facing down the British redcoats or the regulars of financial speculation, our country sets a consistent standard: triumph. That’s something even opinionated talking-heads can’t thwart.

You cannot keep us down. You cannot convince us that our lot is anything less than exceptional. It is a birthright we will give to our children and innumerable generations beyond.

This country and her ideals shall never perish from this earth.

We are so resolved.

(Cross-posted from The Journeying Progressive. Join The Journeying Progressive for long runs, legendary musings and an insatiable quest for knowledge.)

I usually don’t get to spend much time watching the events I put together at Netroots Nation. With a 3 day event comprised of over 100 sessions, over 300 speakers, over 100 sponsors and 2000+ attendees most of my time is spent in our show office. Thankfully I had a little more time at Netroots California to just take the content in. I was tied to one room for the most part, so there’s a lot of great stuff I missed. But for the sessions I did watch there are a few ideas that stuck with me.

Check them out below the fold.

1. The Lesson of how Jerry Brown won

The first session of the day featured a great presentation by Seiji Carpenter at David Binder Research and Bryan Blum at the California Labor Federation filled in a lot of detail on some innovative things labor did this cycle. You can find Seiji’s presentation here and I’d encourage you to page through it. There’s a lot of meat to this presentation, but I wanted to highlight a few things.

* A lot of people, myself included, had heavy criticism and concern that the Brown campaign was completely absent over the summer. Whitman was pounding away at him over the air for 112 days without any response from his campaign. However, Independent Expenditures were up on the air and they were able to communicate their intentions through press releases. They kept the campaign essentially tied over the summer. And if you contrast that with Angelides in 2006 he’d essentially lost by Labor Day.

* The campaign and IEs were able to focus on key demographics. They prevented Whitman from building a base among women. Undecideds moved toward Brown. Latinos came home to Brown and turned out in record numbers (a special shout out to SEIU’s Cambiando campaign here). Working class voters favored Brown. And in a historic shift Asian Americans overwhelmingly broke for Brown.

* Labor ran a program called Million More Voters that was intended to target voters with similar qualities to union members, and they identified 2.8 million people. Asian Americans were more than twice as likely to be targets so they invested a lot of time in researching those communities, something that hasn’t been done on a large scale in California before.

* The result of this work with the Asian American communities around California lead to a 42 point shift. Asian Americans broke 55 to 38 for Democrats in 2010 and 37 to 62 for Democrats in 2006. And the work done here should be particularly instructive for future campaigns.

* Brown won by 13 points in the end, but lost with White voters. That’s something to think about going forward.

So while this isn’t a campaign that I think anyone should repeat, those of us worried because Brown was not making efforts to reach out to youth voters or boldly articulating a progressive vision or running an effective modern online campaign or name your criticism… were wrong.

2. Open Primaries and Redistricting

In the State of California in 2011 and Beyond panel John Laird made a really smart point. He gave a few examples of politicians running last cycle’s campaign this cycle and being surprised when they lost. District 6’s newest supervisor, Jane Kim, wasn’t on this panel but that’s pretty much exactly what happened in her race with her opponents as evidenced by this article and this one.

The new variable in the 2012 cycle isn’t going to be the vastly different Presidential electorate, although candidates ignore that at their peril, it’s going to be the newly passed primary system and redistricting which will be conducted by citizens and not the legislature. In a lot of races around the state there’s a real possibility for both candidates that go through to the general election to be of the same party. In fact that came within a few hundred thousand votes of happening for the GOP in the attorney general’s race had it been in effect this year. It’ll likely lead to one candidate being either more conservative or liberal and one being more moderate. To not end up with a crop of moderates across the state and lose our progressive streak different strategies are going to be necessary. And this is going to be particularly true if one or several incumbents get redistricted into the same district. We’re going to have to think about how and whether to run primaries.

3. Narrative on government and revenue

One of the organizations I was really proud to have in attendance is California Alliance. The point their staff made across several sessions went something like this. Most voters don’t know how government works and they not only don’t trust it they actively despise Sacramento. It’s common for me to be able to walk into a room of activists or politically informed people and throw out terms like 2/3rds or Prop 13 and everyone know exactly what I’m talking about and why they’re a problem. California Alliance and a lot of other groups have made a case that the average voter doesn’t have that level of knowledge and the reason you often see these anti-tax votes or punitive votes is because they don’t like or trust Sacramento. You do have success on the local level raising revenue because voters can see what their local government does and there’s a lot more trust there. At that level it’s schools, fire fighters, police, fixing roads, etc.

So one of the key things everyone needs to be thinking about in their work is how we can build a narrative about the role of government in California, why it’s important, and why we need reforms to revenue to keep the California dream alive.

4. California vs. The Nation

It was pretty hard watching election returns come in from across the country on election night. Across the board Democrats lost seats culminating in a 60+ seat loss for the House. The GOP also claimed several key governorships and state houses on the one year it matters, when redistricting will be done. But that wave washed ashore at the Sierra Nevada and stopped, as a Courage Campaign email poetically put it. Here in California we’ve almost swept the ticket, and that’ll be complete when Kamala Harris claims victory. We pretty much maintained all seats and fended off some formidable challenges. Progressives didn’t get everything they wanted from propositions but we overwhelmingly shut down corporate money.

During “The Big (Progressive) Picture: The National Landscape Going into 2012” panel Rick Jacobs at Courage campaign noted that it’s looking likely that 5 key leadership positions will be occupied by California Republicans giving California an outsized voice in their caucus leadership. He suggests that we’ve got an opportunity over the next two years to influence national politics by focusing activism on these GOP leaders at home. They’re well aware they’ll be facing re-elections in 2 short years and with big changes happening in California they’re targets. That’s worth considering for all activists as we look at both local and national debates.

5. If you contact voters, you win

This sentiment was echoed by multiple people across sessions. A wide spectrum of organizations put in a lot of voter contact work here, made some impressive new moves this cycle, and increased funding for these activities.

But this has been a debate that’s raged on for a while in California. Most of the money spent in campaigns is for TV time. Our consulting class makes big money pushing this tactic so it’s hard to advocate change and more effective uses of that money. I think this election began to show the effectiveness of field operations in California in ways other cycles haven’t. Some of the biggest wins here were won without large budgets for TV.

So we’ve got to continue the fight to fund organizing more heavily. But the other problem expressed was collaboration. When it comes to initiative fights and candidate elections we are able to accomplish proficient communication among campaigns. What isn’t happening yet is effective sharing of resources and division of tasks. As an example, Becky Bond was talking about CREDO’s work on the No on 23 campaign. They had setup field offices in cities around the state to make calls. But other environmental organizations had setup their own offices in those same cities and they weren’t co-located spaces. There was also a division early on between organizations working in communities of color and environmental organizations. The coalition of environmental organizations didn’t want to fund field work in those communities and so a separate No On 23 campaign was formed to work in those communities.

In the end we won on 23, but in my view we won it ugly. There’s a lot of work to be done to foster greater collaboration among organizations and activists in the state and to start playing offense on initiatives over multiple cycles like the conservatives and corporate interests do. This last piece was the driving factor for creating Netroots California in the first place. The content was certainly interesting, but the value will be whether we can forge new relationships and maintain them going forward.

So in conclusion that was my viewpoint on the day. I didn’t get a chance to see a lot of things I really wanted to see, so I’d be eager to hear the thoughts of others.