Charlie Cook’s PVI (Partisan Voting Index) ratings have become an indispensable tool for quickly identifying the partisan lean of any particular Congressional district in the country. Cook basically takes the Presidential results of the past two election cycles in a particular district and matches them against the results of the entire country to come up with the PVI number. If a district is R+3, for example, that basically means it is 3 points more Republican than the country as a whole. I like the Cook PVI because it isn’t based on raw registration numbers, but actual electoral performance that is somewhat uniform across the country.<\/p>\n
Thanks to the release of full election data<\/a> by Congressional district throughout the country, Cook can now calculate the new PVI ratings for every seat. The California numbers are worth considering. (I’ve put all 53 on the flip). As Cook notes, there are 8 districts in the state with “Obama Republicans”; that is, Republican Congressmen in districts that Obama carried (There are no “McCain Democrats”). Those districts are:<\/p>\n CA-03 (Lungren), CA-24 (Gallegly), CA-25 (McKeon), CA-26 (Dreier), CA-44 (Calvert), CA-45 (Bono Mack), CA-48 (Campbell), CA-50 (Bilbray)<\/p>\n Of those seats, the three with the closest PVI ratings are CA-26, CA-45 and CA-50, all which have R+3. CA-24 is an R+4. And the rest in this group are R+6. Keep in mind that 2004 Bush-Kerry stats are factored into this, so there may be a bit of lag from the actual nature of the district. <\/p>\n Of these seats, the only Republican-held seat to get noticeably more Democratic from the 2004 set of ratings was CA-48, which went from an R+8 to an R+6. Several Democratic-held seats shifted in that fashion as well, as the largest partisan shifts in the country were “disproportionately western and suburban,” says Cook.<\/p>\n The most Republican district in the state is CA-22 (McCarthy), which is the 44th most Republican in the country at R+16. The most Democratic is CA-09 (Lee), the 5th most Democratic in the country at D+37. A couple other notes:<\/p>\n \u2022 Jerry McNerney still holds an R+1 seat. However, this is not surprising, since Democrats hold 34 of the 50 seats between R+2 and D+2.<\/p>\n \u2022 CA-10 grew slightly more Democratic this time, at D+11, further destroying the myth that it’s a moderate seat. Actual somewhat close (though not in danger) Democratic seats include CA-18 (Cardoza, D+4), CA-20 (Costa, D+5) and CA-47 (Loretta Sanchez, D+4).<\/p>\n \u2022 Turning to races from last year, CA-46 remains moderately competitive at R+6, while CA-04 (McClintock) is R+10, a testament to how strong Charlie Brown was to even compete.<\/p>\n Now, this just measures the partisan lean of a district, not the partisanship of a particular member of Congress. A better judge for that would be the Progressive Punch score<\/a> weighted for district tilt, an excellent measure of whether or not a member is out of step with their district. In California, the strongest Dems are Barbara Lee, Linda Sanchez and Lynn Woolsey, while the weakest Dems are Jim Costa, Jerry McNerney and Jane Harman (and remember, that’s district-weighted).<\/p>\n A lot to digest here, but much of it is familiar – we have multiple potential Congressional targets, and have for a number of cycles, but just need to use resources and ground talent better.<\/p>\n CA 1 Thompson, Mike (D): D+13 Charlie Cook’s PVI (Partisan Voting Index) ratings have become an indispensable tool for quickly identifying the partisan lean of any particular Congressional district in the country. Cook basically takes the Presidential results of the past two election cycles in a particular district and matches them against the results of the entire country to come up with the PVI number. If a district is R+3, for example, that basically means it is 3 points more Republican than the country as a whole. I like the Cook PVI because it isn’t based on raw registration numbers, but actual electoral performance that is somewhat uniform across the country.<\/p>\n
\n
CA 2 HERGER, WALLY (R): R+11
\n
CA 3 LUNGREN, DANIEL E. (R): R+ 6
\n
CA 4 MCCLINTOCK, TOM (R): R+10
\n
CA 5 Matsui, Doris O. (D): D+15
\n
CA 6 Woolsey, Lynn C. (D): D+23
\n
CA 7 Miller, George (D): D+19
\n
CA 8 Pelosi, Nancy (D): D+35
\n
CA 9 Lee, Barbara (D): D+37
\n
CA10 Tauscher, Ellen O. (D): D+11
\n
CA11 McNerney, Jerry (D): R+ 1
\n
CA12 Speier, Jackie (D): D+23
\n
CA13 Stark, Fortney Pete (D): D+22
\n
CA14 Eshoo, Anna G. (D): D+21
\n
CA15 Honda, Michael M. (D): D+15
\n
CA16 Lofgren, Zoe (D): D+16
\n
CA17 Farr, Sam (D): D+19
\n
CA18 Cardoza, Dennis A. (D): D+ 4
\n
CA19 RADANOVICH, GEORGE P. (R): R+ 9
\n
CA20 Costa, Jim (D): D+ 5
\n
CA21 NUNES, DEVIN G. (R): R+13
\n
CA22 MCCARTHY, KEVIN (R): R+16
\n
CA23 Capps, Lois (D): D+12
\n
CA24 GALLEGLY, ELTON (R): R+ 4
\n
CA25 MCKEON, HOWARD P. ‘BUCK’ (R): R+ 6
\n
CA26 DREIER, DAVID (R): R+ 3
\n
CA27 Sherman, Brad (D): D+13 349
\n
CA28 Berman, Howard L. (D): D+23
\n
CA29 Schiff, Adam B. (D): D+14
\n
CA30 Waxman, Henry A. (D): D+18
\n
CA31 Becerra, Xavier (D): D+29
\n
CA32 Solis, Hilda L. (D): D+15
\n
CA33 Watson, Diane E. (D): D+35
\n
CA34 Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D): D+22
\n
CA35 Waters, Maxine (D): D+31
\n
CA36 Harman, Jane (D): D+12
\n
CA37 Richardson, Laura (D): D+26
\n
CA38 Napolitano, Grace F. (D): D+18
\n
CA39 Sanchez, Linda T. (D): D+12
\n
CA40 ROYCE, EDWARD R. (R): R+ 8
\n
CA41 LEWIS, JERRY (R): R+10
\n
CA42 MILLER, GARY G. (R): R+10
\n
CA43 Baca, Joe (D): D+13
\n
CA44 CALVERT, KEN (R): R+ 6
\n
CA45 BONO MACK, MARY (R): R+ 3
\n
CA46 ROHRABACHER, DANA (R): R+ 6
\n
CA47 Sanchez, Loretta (D): D+ 4
\n
CA48 CAMPBELL, JOHN (R): R+ 6
\n
CA49 ISSA, DARRELL E. (R): R+10
\n
CA50 BILBRAY, BRIAN P. (R): R+ 3
\n
CA51 Filner, Bob (D): D+ 8
\n
CA52 HUNTER, DUNCAN D., JR. (R): R+ 9
\n
CA53 Davis, Susan A. (D): D+14<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"