Tag: PVI

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 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. Last week I calculated PBI for Indiana, this week I tackled Colorado and Virginia.

My best case for arguing against PVI is Indiana.  Bush won Indiana quite easily in 2000 and 2004. The PVI of a number of it’s districts showed them to be quite Red. Yet in 2006 democrats won several districts despite their PVI’s. Also Obama won Indiana in 2008 a state, which based on the make up of the districts PVIs, made little sense. I therefore chose Indiana as my first test case for PBI:

Donnelly in the Indiana 2nd is a perfect example of my issues with PVI. Under PVI Donnelly is in a Republican district with a PVI of -2. But look at how Democrats have recently performed in this district. In 2008 Donnelly won reelection by 37%! Obama won this district by 9 points, and Bayh won it by 22%! Does this sound like a lean GOP district? Under PVI it is, under PBI it’s not it’s a +11 democratic district.

This week I tackled Colorado and Virginia. My general strategy is to work my way “out” from swing states. Both these states have undergone noticable ideological shift. Yet the PVI of their districts haven’t moved as much. This made them ideal candidates.

COLORADO

The big difference in Colorado is that Salazar’s district goes from being a lean Republican one under PVI (-5 Republican), to a lean Democratic one (+4 Democrat), considering that a Salazar has held this same seat for some time this makes more sense. Remember I measuring total party preference not just the presidential preference of a district like PVI measures.

VIRGINIA

Virginia was the first time I had doubts on my ability to compute rough Senate numbers for House districts based on county totals. My estimates from Mark Warner Senate run yielded results of 3540% in Tom Perriello’s (VA-5th) district. This seemed way to high, even though now Senator Warner won the state with 65% of the vote.  At the time Virgil Goode was the representative from the VA-5th, and he lost by only a few hundred votes.- This lead me to do some additional research to try and discover if these numbers were published anywhere. Boy was I wrong Warner actually won the VA-5th by 65%!. Also several of the large victory margins were the results of representatives who ran unopposed. Fixed Party ID, and election results

________________________________________________________________________________

As a reminder I will review how I calculate Party Brand Index.

To compute PBI I basically did the following. I weighed the last 3 presidential elections by a factor of 0.45. Presidential preference is the most indicative vote since it’s the one politician people follow the most. The POTUS is the elected official people identify with or despise the most, thus illuminating their own ideological identification. I then weighed each house seat by 0.35. House seats are gerrymandered and the local leader can most closely match their districts make up in a way the POTUS can’t. So even though they have a lower profile I still gave them a heavy weight. Lastly I gave the last two Senate elections a weight of 0.2. Senatorial preference can make a difference, although I think it’s less than that of the President or the House members. Also (more practically) because I have to back calculate (estimate) Senate result totals from county results, a smaller number helps lessen the “noise” caused by any errors I may make. Under my system Democratic leaning have a positive number, the GOP has a negative number.

I then developed a way to weight for incumbents.  The reelection numbers for incumbents is so high it would be a mistake to weight a district solely on the fact that an incumbent continues to get elected. There is a long list of districts that have PVI that deviate from their incumbent members, whom none the less keep getting elected. These districts then change parties as soon as the incumbent member retires. This is evidence that incumbency can disguise the ideology of voters in a district.

Next I added a weighting of about 7% for House members. I remember reading that incumbency is worth about 5-10%. Nate wrote in a 538.com article that a VP pick from a small state was worth about a 7% swing, a house seat could in fact be thought of as a small state, that seems as good a number as any to start from. Conversely I will deduct 7% from an incumbents win. I think this will score them closer to the natural weight of a district. By the way I’m weighting the win 7% less, not actually subtracting 7% from the number.  Open seat races will be considered “pure” events and will remain neutral as far as weighting goes.  A seat switching parties will also be considered a neutral event. The 1st defense of a seat by a freshman house member will be given a weighting of 2%. The toughest race for any incumbent is their 1st defense. I decided to adjust for this fact. Note: Indiana’s bloddy 9th was a tough call a case could be made that when a seat keeps flipping, and the same two guys run 4 straight times in a row each election should be a neutral event.

Senate weighting is as follows. In state with a single House seat the Senate seat will be weighted the same as a house. In states with multiple seats, the Senate will get a weighting of 2%. Nate Silva stated that a VP pick in a large state is worth this amount. An argument could be made for a sliding scale of Senate weighting from 2-7%, this added complexity may be added at a later date. I will give incumbent presidents a 2% weighting, until I get better data on how powerful a “pull” being the sitting POTUS is, I will give them the same weighting as a senator.

______________________________________

Still to come:

The last major issue is how to deal with the “wingnut” factor. Sometimes a politician like Bill Sali (R-Idaho) or Marylin Musgrove (R-CO)lose because their voting record is outside of the mainstream of their district. I decided to try and factor this in.  

First I had to take a brief refresher on statistics. I developed a formula based on standard deviations. Basically I can figure out how much the average rep deviates from their district.  If I then compare where a reps voting pattern falls (in what percentile) and compare it to their district’s PVI, I can develop a “standard deviation factor”. Inside the standard deviation will get a bonus, outside a negative.

For example, if Rep X is the 42 most conservative rep, that would place her in the 90th percentile. But if her district’s PVI was “only” the in the 60th, their is a good chance her margins would be effected. Using a few random samples I found most reps lie within 12% of their district’s PVI.

Using these dummy numbers I then came up with this.  

   SQRT[(30-12)^2 /2] = about 13%

    Her factor would then be 100 – 13 = 0.87.

So her victory margin would be weighted by 0.87 because she is more than 12% beyond her acceptable percentile range it making the victories in her district approximate 13% less “representative”.

    My theory yields the following formula:

        If rep’s voting record is > PVI then

            100 – SQRT[({Record percentile – PVI} – Standard PVI Sigma)^2 /2] = factor

        else if rep’s voting record < PVI

             100 + SQRT[({Record percentile – PVI} – Standard PVI Sigma)^2 /2] = factor

To really do this I need to compute the standard deviation for all 435 reps, which is a pretty large undertaking. Instead  I will do a google search  to see if anyone has already done this. If not well it will take some time. But this would deal with the wingnut factor. Since politician tend to vote relatively close to their districts interest (even changing voting patterns over time) this may not be a major issue. But developing this factor may eventually allow the creation of a “reelection predictor”, so I am still going to work on it.

One last note, the corruption factor (for example Rep. Cao (R-LA) beating former Rep. Jefferson) is outside of any formula I can think of. The only saving grace here is that because my formula uses several elections, the “noise” from a single event will eventually be reduced.

NEXT UP: NC and MO

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.

My best case for arguing against PVI is Indiana.  Bush won Indiana quite easily in 2000 and 2004. The PVI of a number of it’s districts showed them to be quite Red. Yet in 2006 democrats won several districts despite their PVI’s. Also Obama won Indiana in 2008 a state, which based on the make up of the districts PVIs, made little sense. I therefor chose Indiana as my first test case for PBI.

Indiana also had a number of other oddity that made it an interesting test case. Indiana has Senators from opposite parties that each won election by large blowouts. Lugar’s in particular was enormous as he was essentially unopposed. Indiana also had a number of districts that flipped in the 3 election cycle expanse that I’m examining. Finally it makes the best case for why PVI can be misleading.

To compute PBI I basically did the following. I weighed the last 3 presidential elections by a factor of 0.45. Presidential preference is the most indicative vote since it’s the one politician people follow the most. The POTUS is the elected official people identify with or despise the most, thus illuminating their own ideological identification. I then weighed each house seat by 0.35. House seats are gerrymandered and the local leader can most closely match their districts make up in a way the POTUS can’t. So even though they have a lower profile I still gave them a heavy weight. Lastly I gave the last two Senate elections a weight of 0.2. Senatorial preference can make a difference, although I think it’s less than that of the President or the House members. Also (more practically) because I have to back calculate (estimate) Senate result totals from county results, a smaller number helps lessen the “noise” caused by any errors I may make.

I was then left with this chart:

I now began to look at the results. Under my system Democratic leaning have a positive number, the GOP has a negative number. Donnelly in the Indiana 2nd is a perfect example of my issues with PVI. Under PVI Donnelly is in a Republican district with a PVI of -2. But look at how democrats have recently performed in this district. In 2008 Donnelly won reelection by 37%! Obama won this ditrict by 9 points, and Bayh won it by 22%! Does this sound like a lean GOP district? Under PVI it is, under PBI it’s not it’s a +11 democratic district.

I then decided to go all Nate Silvaish and gave more recent elections a greater weight. I gave an addition 5% weight to each election as it got closer to the most recent election. To be honest I pulled 5% out of my dairy air but Nate gave a similar weighting to poll results as fresher ones came in 2008, so I copied this formula. This resulted in the following:

The next issue I decided to tackle was to develop a way to weight for incumbents.  The reelection numbers for incumbants is so high it would be a mistake to weight a district soley on the fact that an incumbat continues to get elected. There is a long list of districts that have PVI that devate from their incumbant members, whom none the less keep getting elected. These disticts then change parties as soon as the incumbant member retires. This is evidence that incumbancy can disguise the ideology of voters in a district.

I decided on a weight of about 7% for House members. I remember reading that incumbency is worth about 5-10%. Also Nate wrote in a 538.com article that a VP pick from a small state was worth about a 7% swing, a house seat could in fact be thought of as a small state, that seems as good a number as any to start from. Conversely I will deduct 7% from an incumbents win. I think this will score them closer to the natural weight of a district. By the way I’m weighting the win 7% less, not actually subtracting 7% from the number.  Open seat races will be considered “pure” events and will remain neutral as far as weighting goes.  A seat switching parties will also be considered a neutral event. The 1st defense of a seat by a freshman house member will be given a weighting of 2%. The toughest race for any incumbant is their 1st defense. I decided to adjust for this fact. Note: Indiana’s bloddy 9th was a tough call a case could be made that when a seat keeps flipping, and the same two guys run 4 straight times in a row each election should be a neutral event.

Senate weighting will be as follows. In state with a single House seat the Senate seat will be weighted the same as a house. In states with mutiple seat, the Senate will get a wighting of 2%. Nate Silva stated that a VP pick in a large state is worth this amount. An argument could be made for a sliding scale of Senate weighting from 2-7%, this added complexity may be added at a later date. I will give incumbant presidents a 2% weighting, until I get better data on how powerful a “pull” being the sitting POTUS is, I will give them the same weighting as a senator.

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.

______________________________________

The last major issue is how to deal with the “wingnut” factor. Sometimes a politician like Bill Sali (R-Idaho) or Marylin Musgrove (R-CO)lose because their voting record is outside of the mainstream of their district. I decided to try and factor this in.

First I had to take a brief refresher on statistics. I developed a formula based on standard deviations. Basically I can figure out how much the average rep deviates from their district.  If I then compare where a reps voting pattern falls (in what percentile) and compare it to their district’s PVI, I can develop a “standard deviation factor”. Inside the standard deviation will get a bonus, outside a negative.

For example, if Rep X is the 42 most conservative rep, that would place her in the 90th percentile. But if her district’s PVI was “only” the in the 60th, their is a good chance her margins would be effected. Using a few random samples I found most reps lie within 12% of their district’s PVI.

Using these dummy numbers I then came up with this.  

   SQRT[(30-12)^2 /2] = about 13%

    Her factor would then be 100 – 13 = 0.87.

So her victory margin would be weighted by 0.87 because she is more than 12% beyond her acceptable percentile range it making the victories in her district approximate 13% less “representative”.

    My theory yields the following formula:

        If rep’s voting record is > PVI then

            100 – SQRT[({Record percentile – PVI} – Standard PVI Sigma)^2 /2] = factor

        else if rep’s voting record < PVI

             100 + SQRT[({Record percentile – PVI} – Standard PVI Sigma)^2 /2] = factor

To really do this I need to compute the standard deviation for all 435 reps, which is a pretty large undertaking. Instead  I will do a google search  to see if anyone has already done this. If not well it will take some time. But this would deal with the wingnut factor. Since politician tend to vote relatively close to their districts interest (even changing voting patterns over time) this may not be a major issue. But developing this factor may eventually allow the creation of a “reelection predictor”, so I am still going to work on it.

One last note, the corruption factor (for example Rep. Cao (R-LA) beating former Rep. Jefferson) is outside of any formula I can think of. The only saving grace here is that because my formula uses several elections, the “noise” from a single event will eventually be reduced.

Next Up: Colorado ( have the data done already) and Virginia

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):

We need to talk methodology briefly. I’ll do this as a Q&A in order to make it a little livelier.

What the heck is DW/N? As my primary vote-aggregating resource, I’m using DW/Nominate scores, which are a tool I used in a number of vote-scoring-themed diaries last summer. The main advantage DW/N has over other scores is that they aggregate absolutely every vote, instead of cherry-picking. (ADA ratings and CQ party unity scores, for instance, pick so few votes that it’s terribly insufficient gradation among representatives; nearly all Dems have an ADA score of 90, 95, or 100, while nearly all have a CQ score in the 96-98 range… which is why I don’t use either of those metrics.) In each case, I’m using the DW/N score of whatever representative ended the session holding the seat, even if someone else held it the majority of the term.

On the other hand, most everyone else (Progressive Punch, National Journal, CQ, the ADA) uses a 0-100 score, with 100 being most liberal, which is easy for people to mentally convert to the A-B-C-D-F grading scale. By comparison, DW/Nominate scores are difficult to interpret. The scores generally run from – 1 (most liberal) to 1 (least liberal). The scoring algorithm seems to measure similarities between voting records among representatives; a number further away from 0 indicates a greater amount of distance between your record and those of other reps. In fact, if your voting record doesn’t look anything like anybody’s elses, you can exceed the 1 to -1 range (as with Ron Paul’s 1.4).

You may recall last year, to do this project, I created one averaged-out liberal rating using both Progressive Punch and National Journal scores. While I’d very much like to use Progressive Punch scores again — I think they do the best job of the “just right” amount of vote cherry-picking and turning it into an easy-to-understand score — they’ve already turned their attention to the 111th Congress now in session and their old scores from the 110th have already vanished from public view.

And rather than try to average out DW/Nominate and National Journal scores, I’ve just decided there’s too much apples and oranges going on there. This is partly because of the different scoring techniques, which results in some odd discrepancies… National Journal’s method is insensitive to ‘purity’ votes (i.e. voting against something not because you disagree but because it doesn’t go far enough) so the furthest-left or right members of the caucuses (like McDermott, Kucinich, Stark, DeFazio, Woolsey, Waters, or Capuano for the Dems, or Paul for the GOP) tend to get buried in mid-caucus or even treated as centrists.

More importantly, though, there are 19 seats for which there is no National Journal composite score for both 2007 and 2008, mostly because the seat changed hands in a special election (or because of a lot of absences, either for sickness or leadership duties). As a result, what I’ve decided to do is run entirely separate tables based solely on National Journal numbers. As you can see, many of the same people appear relatively in the same places. Members for whom there are scores, and the PVI of their districts, are rated 1-416 instead of 1-435. (The missing parties are Pelosi, Lantos/Speier, Millender-McDonald/Richardson, Crenshaw, Norwood/Broun, Rush, Hastert/Foster, Carson/Carson, Jindal/Scalise, Baker/Cazayoux, Wynn/Edwards, Meehan/Tsongas, Wicker/Childers, Andrews, Gillibrand, Gilmoor/Latta, Pryce, Davis/Wittman, and Cubin.)

Here are the tables based on National Journal composite scores instead. (There is a rating for both 2007 and 2008, so I averaged the two to get one score for each. Again, representatives and districts are ranked only 1 to 416 in this series, because scores aren’t available for 19 seats.) Here are the underperforming Dems:

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!

I previously posted new Cook PVIs for all congressional districts.  As many noted, the numbers seem screwy.  This is a function of the formula Cook uses to calculate PVI.

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:

State	CD	Member	Party	Old SPVI	New SPVI	Change
AK	AL	Young	(R)	R+ 14.9	R+ 13.1	D+ 1.8
AL	1	Bonner	(R)	R+ 12.4	R+ 14.0	R+ 1.6
AL	2	Bright	(D)	R+ 13.8	R+ 16.5	R+ 2.7
AL	3	Rogers	(R)	R+ 5.1	R+ 8.8	R+ 3.7
AL	4	Aderholt	(R)	R+ 16.5	R+ 25.5	R+ 9.0
AL	5	Griffith	(D)	R+ 7.4	R+ 12.3	R+ 5.0
AL	6	Bachus	(R)	R+ 25.9	R+ 28.6	R+ 2.7
AL	7	Davis	(D)	D+ 16.1	D+ 17.5	D+ 1.3
AR	1	Berry	(D)	R+ 0.3	R+ 7.9	R+ 7.6
AR	2	Snyder	(D)	R+ 0.5	R+ 4.5	R+ 4.0
AR	3	Boozman	(R)	R+ 12.1	R+ 15.5	R+ 3.4
AR	4	Ross	(D)	R+ 0.0	R+ 6.9	R+ 6.9
AZ	1	Kirkpatrick	(D)	R+ 2.8	R+ 5.8	R+ 3.0
AZ	2	Franks	(R)	R+ 9.4	R+ 12.8	R+ 3.4
AZ	3	Shadegg	(R)	R+ 6.9	R+ 9.3	R+ 2.4
AZ	4	Pastor	(D)	D+ 13.6	D+ 13.1	R+ 0.5
AZ	5	Mitchell	(D)	R+ 4.6	R+ 4.8	R+ 0.1
AZ	6	Flake	(R)	R+ 13.0	R+ 14.4	R+ 1.4
AZ	7	Grijalva	(D)	D+ 9.2	D+ 6.1	R+ 3.1
AZ	8	Giffords	(D)	R+ 2.3	R+ 4.5	R+ 2.2
CA	1	Thompson	(D)	D+ 9.7	D+ 13.1	D+ 3.4
CA	2	Herger	(R)	R+ 13.3	R+ 10.6	D+ 2.7
CA	3	Lungren	(R)	R+ 7.5	R+ 5.5	D+ 1.9
CA	4	McClintock	(R)	R+ 11.7	R+ 9.9	D+ 1.8
CA	5	Matsui	(D)	D+ 12.9	D+ 15.3	D+ 2.4
CA	6	Woolsey	(D)	D+ 19.9	D+ 23.3	D+ 3.4
CA	7	Miller	(D)	D+ 18.3	D+ 19.2	D+ 0.9
CA	8	Pelosi	(D)	D+ 35.3	D+ 35.5	D+ 0.3
CA	9	Lee	(D)	D+ 36.9	D+ 37.1	D+ 0.3
CA	10	Tauscher	(D)	D+ 8.9	D+ 11.7	D+ 2.8
CA	11	McNerney	(D)	R+ 3.8	R+ 1.2	D+ 2.6
CA	12	Speier	(D)	D+ 21.7	D+ 22.9	D+ 1.2
CA	13	Stark	(D)	D+ 20.9	D+ 22.4	D+ 1.5
CA	14	Eshoo	(D)	D+ 17.5	D+ 20.7	D+ 3.2
CA	15	Honda	(D)	D+ 13.6	D+ 15.3	D+ 1.7
CA	16	Lofgren	(D)	D+ 15.3	D+ 16.0	D+ 0.7
CA	17	Farr	(D)	D+ 16.1	D+ 18.8	D+ 2.8
CA	18	Cardoza	(D)	D+ 2.6	D+ 3.6	D+ 1.1
CA	19	Radanovich	(R)	R+ 10.2	R+ 8.6	D+ 1.7
CA	20	Costa	(D)	D+ 4.0	D+ 4.8	D+ 0.8
CA	21	Nunes	(R)	R+ 13.5	R+ 12.6	D+ 0.8
CA	22	McCarthy	(R)	R+ 16.8	R+ 16.2	D+ 0.7
CA	23	Capps	(D)	D+ 8.8	D+ 11.9	D+ 3.1
CA	24	Gallegly	(R)	R+ 5.6	R+ 3.7	D+ 1.9
CA	25	McKeon	(R)	R+ 7.9	R+ 5.5	D+ 2.4
CA	26	Dreier	(R)	R+ 4.6	R+ 3.0	D+ 1.6
CA	27	Sherman	(D)	D+ 11.8	D+ 12.6	D+ 0.7
CA	28	Berman	(D)	D+ 24.0	D+ 23.4	R+ 0.6
CA	29	Schiff	(D)	D+ 11.8	D+ 14.6	D+ 2.8
CA	30	Waxman	(D)	D+ 19.2	D+ 17.8	R+ 1.4
CA	31	Becerra	(D)	D+ 29.5	D+ 28.5	R+ 1.0
CA	32		(D)	D+ 16.0	D+ 14.8	R+ 1.2
CA	33	Watson	(D)	D+ 35.2	D+ 34.6	R+ 0.6
CA	34	Roybal-Allard	(D)	D+ 22.1	D+ 21.9	R+ 0.2
CA	35	Waters	(D)	D+ 31.8	D+ 31.5	R+ 0.3
CA	36	Harman	(D)	D+ 10.0	D+ 11.2	D+ 1.3
CA	37	Richardson	(D)	D+ 26.6	D+ 26.6	R+ 0.1
CA	38	Napolitano	(D)	D+ 19.0	D+ 17.8	R+ 1.2
CA	39	Sanchez	(D)	D+ 11.9	D+ 12.3	D+ 0.3
CA	40	Royce	(R)	R+ 8.7	R+ 7.5	D+ 1.1
CA	41	Lewis	(R)	R+ 9.7	R+ 10.1	R+ 0.4
CA	42	Miller	(R)	R+ 10.9	R+ 9.6	D+ 1.4
CA	43	Baca	(D)	D+ 12.4	D+ 12.8	D+ 0.3
CA	44	Calvert	(R)	R+ 6.6	R+ 5.8	D+ 0.9
CA	45	Bono	(R)	R+ 3.8	R+ 3.2	D+ 0.6
CA	46	Rohrabacher	(R)	R+ 6.6	R+ 5.5	D+ 1.1
CA	47	Sanchez	(D)	D+ 3.8	D+ 4.1	D+ 0.3
CA	48	Campbell	(R)	R+ 8.7	R+ 5.8	D+ 2.9
CA	49	Issa	(R)	R+ 11.4	R+ 10.1	D+ 1.4
CA	50	Bilbray	(R)	R+ 5.1	R+ 3.0	D+ 2.1
CA	51	Filner	(D)	D+ 6.3	D+ 7.4	D+ 1.0
CA	52	Hunter	(R)	R+ 9.7	R+ 9.1	D+ 0.6
CA	53	Davis	(D)	D+ 11.5	D+ 14.3	D+ 2.8
CO	1	DeGette	(D)	D+ 17.3	D+ 20.9	D+ 3.6
CO	2	Udall	(D)	D+ 7.2	D+ 10.7	D+ 3.6
CO	3	Salazar	(D)	R+ 6.3	R+ 4.8	D+ 1.6
CO	4	Markey	(D)	R+ 9.1	R+ 5.8	D+ 3.4
CO	5	Lamborn	(R)	R+ 16.4	R+ 14.4	D+ 2.0
CO	6	Coffman	(R)	R+ 10.7	R+ 8.3	D+ 2.5
CO	7	Perlmutter	(D)	D+ 1.5	D+ 4.3	D+ 2.8
CT	1	Larson	(D)	D+ 13.4	D+ 12.4	R+ 1.0
CT	2	Courtney	(D)	D+ 6.8	D+ 6.1	R+ 0.6
CT	3	DeLauro	(D)	D+ 11.0	D+ 9.2	R+ 1.8
CT	4	Himes	(D)	D+ 4.6	D+ 5.3	D+ 0.7
CT	5	Murphy	(D)	D+ 2.9	D+ 2.4	R+ 0.5
DE	AL	Castle	(R)	D+ 5.6	D+ 6.9	D+ 1.3
FL	1	Miller	(R)	R+ 20.0	R+ 21.1	R+ 1.0
FL	2	Boyd	(D)	R+ 3.0	R+ 5.5	R+ 2.5
FL	3	Brown	(D)	D+ 15.5	D+ 18.1	D+ 2.7
FL	4	Crenshaw	(R)	R+ 17.0	R+ 16.5	D+ 0.5
FL	5	Brown-Waite	(R)	R+ 5.8	R+ 8.8	R+ 3.0
FL	6	Stearns	(R)	R+ 9.0	R+ 10.0	R+ 1.0
FL	7	Mica	(R)	R+ 5.0	R+ 6.5	R+ 1.5
FL	8	Grayson	(D)	R+ 4.0	R+ 2.2	D+ 1.8
FL	9	Bilirakis	(R)	R+ 5.0	R+ 6.0	R+ 1.0
FL	10	Young	(R)	D+ 0.5	R+ 0.7	R+ 1.2
FL	11	Castor	(D)	D+ 10.3	D+ 11.4	D+ 1.1
FL	12	Putnam	(R)	R+ 6.0	R+ 5.5	D+ 0.5
FL	13	Buchanan	(R)	R+ 4.7	R+ 5.5	R+ 0.7
FL	14	Mack	(R)	R+ 11.0	R+ 11.0	D+ 0.0
FL	15	Posey	(R)	R+ 5.0	R+ 5.5	R+ 0.5
FL	16	Rooney	(R)	R+ 3.0	R+ 4.5	R+ 1.5
FL	17	Meek	(D)	D+ 34.5	D+ 34.2	R+ 0.3
FL	18	Ros-Lehtinen	(R)	R+ 5.0	R+ 2.7	D+ 2.3
FL	19	Wexler	(D)	D+ 20.0	D+ 14.6	R+ 5.4
FL	20	Wasserman-Schultz	(D)	D+ 17.0	D+ 12.6	R+ 4.4
FL	21	Diaz-Balart	(R)	R+ 7.0	R+ 5.2	D+ 1.8
FL	22	Klein	(D)	D+ 2.5	D+ 0.8	R+ 1.7
FL	23	Hastings	(D)	D+ 28.5	D+ 28.3	R+ 0.2
FL	24	Kosmas	(D)	R+ 3.5	R+ 4.2	R+ 0.7
FL	25	Diaz-Balart	(R)	R+ 5.0	R+ 4.5	D+ 0.5
GA	1	Kingston	(R)	R+ 13.5	R+ 16.0	R+ 2.5
GA	2	Bishop	(D)	D+ 1.5	D+ 0.8	R+ 0.7
GA	3	Westmoreland	(R)	R+ 18.4	R+ 18.9	R+ 0.5
GA	4	Johnson	(D)	D+ 21.3	D+ 24.1	D+ 2.8
GA	5	Lewis	(D)	D+ 24.0	D+ 25.7	D+ 1.7
GA	6	Price	(R)	R+ 18.9	R+ 17.9	D+ 1.0
GA	7	Linder	(R)	R+ 19.0	R+ 16.5	D+ 2.5
GA	8	Marshall	(D)	R+ 9.0	R+ 10.0	R+ 1.0
GA	9	Deal	(R)	R+ 23.5	R+ 27.6	R+ 4.1
GA	10	Broun	(R)	R+ 13.5	R+ 14.5	R+ 1.0
GA	11	Gingrey	(R)	R+ 17.7	R+ 20.1	R+ 2.4
GA	12	Barrow	(D)	D+ 1.2	D+ 0.8	R+ 0.4
GA	13	Scott	(D)	D+ 9.0	D+ 14.6	D+ 5.7
HI	1	Abercrombie	(D)	D+ 6.2	D+ 11.0	D+ 4.8
HI	2	Hirono	(D)	D+ 8.9	D+ 14.0	D+ 5.1
IA	1	Braley	(D)	D+ 4.1	D+ 4.8	D+ 0.8
IA	2	Loebsack	(D)	D+ 5.9	D+ 7.2	D+ 1.3
IA	3	Boswell	(D)	D+ 0.7	D+ 1.3	D+ 0.6
IA	4	Latham	(R)	R+ 0.5	D+ 0.1	D+ 0.6
IA	5	King	(R)	R+ 9.2	R+ 9.1	D+ 0.1
ID	1	Minnick	(D)	R+ 19.8	R+ 17.7	D+ 2.1
ID	2	Simpson	(R)	R+ 19.6	R+ 17.5	D+ 2.1
IL	1	Rush	(D)	D+ 34.0	D+ 33.8	R+ 0.2
IL	2	Jackson	(D)	D+ 34.0	D+ 35.8	D+ 1.8
IL	3	Lipinski	(D)	D+ 9.6	D+ 10.6	D+ 1.0
IL	4	Gutierrez	(D)	D+ 29.9	D+ 31.6	D+ 1.8
IL	5		(D)	D+ 17.0	D+ 19.1	D+ 2.2
IL	6	Roskam	(R)	R+ 3.3	D+ 0.6	D+ 3.9
IL	7	Davis	(D)	D+ 33.9	D+ 34.3	D+ 0.4
IL	8	Bean	(D)	R+ 6.1	R+ 0.9	D+ 5.1
IL	9	Schakowsky	(D)	D+ 18.7	D+ 19.5	D+ 0.8
IL	10	Kirk	(R)	D+ 3.0	D+ 6.1	D+ 3.1
IL	11	Halvorson	(D)	R+ 1.8	R+ 0.9	D+ 0.8
IL	12	Costello	(D)	D+ 4.3	D+ 2.3	R+ 2.0
IL	13	Biggert	(R)	R+ 5.4	R+ 1.4	D+ 3.9
IL	14	Foster	(D)	R+ 5.1	R+ 1.2	D+ 3.9
IL	15	Johnson	(R)	R+ 6.8	R+ 6.2	D+ 0.6
IL	16	Manzullo	(R)	R+ 5.1	R+ 2.0	D+ 3.2
IL	17	Hare	(D)	D+ 3.8	D+ 3.1	R+ 0.7
IL	18	Schock	(R)	R+ 6.1	R+ 5.7	D+ 0.3
IL	19	Shimkus	(R)	R+ 8.9	R+ 9.3	R+ 0.4
IN	1	Visclosky	(D)	D+ 6.8	D+ 7.9	D+ 1.0
IN	2	Donnelly	(D)	R+ 4.8	R+ 2.2	D+ 2.6
IN	3	Souder	(R)	R+ 17.2	R+ 13.8	D+ 3.3
IN	4	Buyer	(R)	R+ 18.0	R+ 14.4	D+ 3.7
IN	5	Burton	(R)	R+ 20.2	R+ 16.9	D+ 3.3
IN	6	Pence	(R)	R+ 11.6	R+ 10.3	D+ 1.3
IN	7	Carson	(D)	D+ 7.8	D+ 13.6	D+ 5.9
IN	8	Ellsworth	(D)	R+ 9.3	R+ 8.2	D+ 1.1
IN	9	Hill	(D)	R+ 7.9	R+ 6.3	D+ 1.6
KS	1	Moran	(R)	R+ 21.1	R+ 22.8	R+ 1.7
KS	2	Jenkins	(R)	R+ 8.0	R+ 9.4	R+ 1.3
KS	3	Moore	(D)	R+ 5.2	R+ 3.2	D+ 1.9
KS	4	Tiahrt	(R)	R+ 12.9	R+ 13.5	R+ 0.6
KY	1	Whitfield	(R)	R+ 10.9	R+ 14.4	R+ 3.4
KY	2	Guthrie	(R)	R+ 13.7	R+ 14.9	R+ 1.2
KY	3	Yarmuth	(D)	D+ 1.5	D+ 2.6	D+ 1.1
KY	4	Davis	(R)	R+ 12.5	R+ 13.6	R+ 1.2
KY	5	Rogers	(R)	R+ 8.8	R+ 15.9	R+ 7.1
KY	6	Chandler	(D)	R+ 7.4	R+ 8.6	R+ 1.2
LA	1	Scalise	(R)	R+ 19.6	R+ 23.9	R+ 4.4
LA	2	Cao	(R)	D+ 27.1	D+ 24.0	R+ 3.1
LA	3	Melancon	(D)	R+ 5.6	R+ 11.6	R+ 6.0
LA	4	Fleming	(R)	R+ 7.4	R+ 10.8	R+ 3.4
LA	5	Alexander	(R)	R+ 10.2	R+ 13.8	R+ 3.6
LA	6	Cassidy	(R)	R+ 7.4	R+ 10.1	R+ 2.7
LA	7	Boustany	(R)	R+ 8.2	R+ 13.7	R+ 5.5
MA	1	Olver	(D)	D+ 14.1	D+ 13.6	R+ 0.5
MA	2	Neal	(D)	D+ 11.5	D+ 8.7	R+ 2.8
MA	3	McGovern	(D)	D+ 11.7	D+ 8.7	R+ 3.0
MA	4	Frank	(D)	D+ 18.2	D+ 14.3	R+ 4.0
MA	5	Tsongas	(D)	D+ 10.2	D+ 8.0	R+ 2.3
MA	6	Tierney	(D)	D+ 10.4	D+ 7.4	R+ 3.1
MA	7	Markey	(D)	D+ 18.2	D+ 15.3	R+ 3.0
MA	8	Capuano	(D)	D+ 32.3	D+ 32.1	R+ 0.2
MA	9	Lynch	(D)	D+ 14.6	D+ 10.9	R+ 3.7
MA	10	Delahunt	(D)	D+ 7.8	D+ 4.8	R+ 3.0
MD	1	Kratovil	(D)	R+ 10.5	R+ 12.4	R+ 1.9
MD	2	Ruppersberger	(D)	D+ 6.8	D+ 6.7	R+ 0.2
MD	3	Sarbanes	(D)	D+ 6.4	D+ 6.2	R+ 0.3
MD	4	Edwards	(D)	D+ 29.2	D+ 31.1	D+ 1.9
MD	5	Hoyer	(D)	D+ 8.4	D+ 10.7	D+ 2.4
MD	6	Bartlett	(R)	R+ 13.8	R+ 13.6	D+ 0.1
MD	7	Cummings	(D)	D+ 24.6	D+ 25.5	D+ 0.9
MD	8	Van Hollen	(D)	D+ 19.4	D+ 21.0	D+ 1.6
ME	1	Pingree	(D)	D+ 5.4	D+ 7.7	D+ 2.2
ME	2	Michaud	(D)	D+ 2.8	D+ 3.4	D+ 0.5
MI	1	Stupak	(D)	R+ 3.1	R+ 2.5	D+ 0.6
MI	2	Hoekstra	(R)	R+ 10.2	R+ 7.3	D+ 2.9
MI	3	Ehlers	(R)	R+ 9.9	R+ 6.0	D+ 3.9
MI	4	Camp	(R)	R+ 4.8	R+ 3.5	D+ 1.4
MI	5	Kildee	(D)	D+ 11.1	D+ 10.6	R+ 0.5
MI	6	Upton	(R)	R+ 3.1	R+ 0.7	D+ 2.4
MI	7	Schauer	(D)	R+ 3.1	R+ 2.0	D+ 1.1
MI	8	Rogers	(R)	R+ 2.8	R+ 1.7	D+ 1.1
MI	9	Peters	(D)	R+ 1.0	D+ 1.6	D+ 2.6
MI	10	Miller	(R)	R+ 5.1	R+ 5.2	R+ 0.2
MI	11	McCotter	(R)	R+ 2.0	R+ 0.4	D+ 1.6
MI	12	Levin	(D)	D+ 12.1	D+ 12.4	D+ 0.3
MI	13	Kilpatrick	(D)	D+ 31.4	D+ 31.8	D+ 0.4
MI	14	Conyers	(D)	D+ 32.9	D+ 33.3	D+ 0.4
MI	15	Dingell	(D)	D+ 12.1	D+ 13.1	D+ 1.0
MN	1	Walz	(D)	R+ 1.6	R+ 1.2	D+ 0.4
MN	2	Kline	(R)	R+ 3.6	R+ 4.0	R+ 0.4
MN	3	Paulsen	(R)	R+ 1.3	R+ 0.4	D+ 0.9
MN	4	McCollum	(D)	D+ 12.1	D+ 12.7	D+ 0.6
MN	5	Ellison	(D)	D+ 20.6	D+ 22.4	D+ 1.8
MN	6	Bachmann	(R)	R+ 6.0	R+ 7.0	R+ 1.1
MN	7	Peterson	(D)	R+ 6.3	R+ 5.1	D+ 1.2
MN	8	Oberstar	(D)	D+ 3.6	D+ 2.6	R+ 1.0
MO	1	Clay	(D)	D+ 24.7	D+ 26.7	D+ 2.0
MO	2	Akin	(R)	R+ 9.6	R+ 9.0	D+ 0.6
MO	3	Carnahan	(D)	D+ 6.8	D+ 7.6	D+ 0.8
MO	4	Skelton	(D)	R+ 11.4	R+ 14.4	R+ 2.9
MO	5	Cleaver	(D)	D+ 11.2	D+ 10.9	R+ 0.3
MO	6	Graves	(R)	R+ 5.6	R+ 7.3	R+ 1.7
MO	7	Blunt	(R)	R+ 15.0	R+ 17.2	R+ 2.2
MO	8	Emerson	(R)	R+ 11.6	R+ 14.9	R+ 3.2
MO	9	Luetkemeyer	(R)	R+ 7.4	R+ 8.5	R+ 1.1
MS	1	Childers	(D)	R+ 10.6	R+ 13.5	R+ 2.9
MS	2	Thompson	(D)	D+ 9.4	D+ 11.6	D+ 2.2
MS	3	Harper	(R)	R+ 14.7	R+ 15.0	R+ 0.4
MS	4	Taylor	(D)	R+ 17.0	R+ 19.6	R+ 2.5
MT	AL	Rehberg	(R)	R+ 11.5	R+ 6.8	D+ 4.6
NC	1	Butterfield	(D)	D+ 8.1	D+ 8.9	D+ 0.8
NC	2	Etheridge	(D)	R+ 3.3	R+ 2.0	D+ 1.3
NC	3	Jones	(R)	R+ 15.8	R+ 16.0	R+ 0.2
NC	4	Price	(D)	D+ 5.0	D+ 8.4	D+ 3.3
NC	5	Foxx	(R)	R+ 16.2	R+ 15.4	D+ 0.8
NC	6	Coble	(R)	R+ 18.2	R+ 17.9	D+ 0.3
NC	7	McIntyre	(D)	R+ 3.5	R+ 5.5	R+ 2.0
NC	8	Kissell	(D)	R+ 3.8	R+ 2.0	D+ 1.8
NC	9	Myrick	(R)	R+ 13.1	R+ 10.5	D+ 2.6
NC	10	McHenry	(R)	R+ 15.8	R+ 16.5	R+ 0.7
NC	11	Shuler	(D)	R+ 7.6	R+ 6.0	D+ 1.6
NC	12	Watt	(D)	D+ 10.8	D+ 15.6	D+ 4.9
NC	13	Miller	(D)	D+ 1.5	D+ 4.8	D+ 3.3
ND	AL	Pomeroy	(D)	R+ 13.8	R+ 10.1	D+ 3.7
NE	1	Fortenberry	(R)	R+ 12.4	R+ 10.6	D+ 1.8
NE	2	Terry	(R)	R+ 9.8	R+ 6.6	D+ 3.2
NE	3	Smith	(R)	R+ 24.4	R+ 23.9	D+ 0.4
NH	1	Shea-Porter	(D)	R+ 1.1	R+ 0.5	D+ 0.6
NH	2	Hodes	(D)	D+ 2.0	D+ 3.3	D+ 1.3
NJ	1	Andrews	(D)	D+ 13.5	D+ 12.1	R+ 1.4
NJ	2	Lobiondo	(R)	D+ 3.1	D+ 0.8	R+ 2.3
NJ	3	Adler	(D)	D+ 2.8	R+ 0.5	R+ 3.3
NJ	4	Smith	(R)	R+ 1.5	R+ 5.5	R+ 4.0
NJ	5	Garrett	(R)	R+ 4.8	R+ 7.0	R+ 2.2
NJ	6	Pallone	(D)	D+ 10.8	D+ 7.6	R+ 3.2
NJ	7	Lance	(R)	R+ 1.3	R+ 2.0	R+ 0.7
NJ	8	Pascrell	(D)	D+ 10.9	D+ 10.1	R+ 0.8
NJ	9	Rothman	(D)	D+ 12.5	D+ 9.1	R+ 3.4
NJ	10	Payne	(D)	D+ 33.4	D+ 33.3	R+ 0.1
NJ	11	Frelinghuysen	(R)	R+ 6.3	R+ 7.5	R+ 1.1
NJ	12	Holt	(D)	D+ 6.7	D+ 5.1	R+ 1.6
NJ	13	Sires	(D)	D+ 22.1	D+ 21.2	R+ 0.9
NM	1	Heinrich	(D)	D+ 1.5	D+ 4.5	D+ 3.0
NM	2	Teague	(D)	R+ 6.6	R+ 5.8	D+ 0.9
NM	3	Lujan	(D)	D+ 5.1	D+ 6.9	D+ 1.7
NV	1	Berkley	(D)	D+ 8.1	D+ 10.2	D+ 2.1
NV	2	Heller	(R)	R+ 8.9	R+ 5.3	D+ 3.6
NV	3	Titus	(D)	D+ 0.5	D+ 1.6	D+ 1.1
NY	1	Bishop	(D)	D+ 2.6	R+ 0.2	R+ 2.8
NY	2	Israel	(D)	D+ 7.2	D+ 4.1	R+ 3.1
NY	3	King	(R)	D+ 1.3	R+ 3.7	R+ 5.1
NY	4	McCarthy	(D)	D+ 8.7	D+ 5.9	R+ 2.8
NY	5	Ackerman	(D)	D+ 16.8	D+ 12.4	R+ 4.4
NY	6	Meeks	(D)	D+ 37.3	D+ 35.7	R+ 1.6
NY	7	Crowley	(D)	D+ 26.9	D+ 26.1	R+ 0.9
NY	8	Nadler	(D)	D+ 27.1	D+ 22.1	R+ 4.9
NY	9	Weiner	(D)	D+ 13.0	D+ 4.6	R+ 8.5
NY	10	Towns	(D)	D+ 39.8	D+ 37.7	R+ 2.0
NY	11	Clarke	(D)	D+ 39.0	D+ 37.7	R+ 1.3
NY	12	Velazquez	(D)	D+ 32.7	D+ 32.6	R+ 0.1
NY	13	McMahon	(D)	D+ 0.1	R+ 4.2	R+ 4.3
NY	14	Maloney	(D)	D+ 25.5	D+ 25.5	D+ 0.1
NY	15	Rangel	(D)	D+ 42.2	D+ 41.2	R+ 1.0
NY	16	Serrano	(D)	D+ 42.9	D+ 41.2	R+ 1.6
NY	17	Engel	(D)	D+ 19.9	D+ 18.3	R+ 1.6
NY	18	Lowey	(D)	D+ 9.4	D+ 8.8	R+ 0.6
NY	19	Hall	(D)	R+ 2.3	R+ 2.7	R+ 0.4
NY	20		(D)	R+ 3.4	R+ 2.5	D+ 0.9
NY	21	Tonko	(D)	D+ 8.0	D+ 6.4	R+ 1.6
NY	22	Hinchey	(D)	D+ 5.2	D+ 6.2	D+ 1.0
NY	23	McHugh	(R)	R+ 1.1	R+ 1.0	D+ 0.1
NY	24	Arcuri	(D)	R+ 1.3	R+ 2.0	R+ 0.7
NY	25	Maffei	(D)	D+ 2.6	D+ 2.6	D+ 0.0
NY	26	Lee	(R)	R+ 4.4	R+ 5.8	R+ 1.4
NY	27	Higgins	(D)	D+ 5.7	D+ 3.4	R+ 2.3
NY	28	Slaughter	(D)	D+ 13.9	D+ 15.4	D+ 1.6
NY	29	Massa	(D)	R+ 5.7	R+ 5.5	D+ 0.1
OH	1	Driehaus	(D)	R+ 1.3	D+ 1.1	D+ 2.4
OH	2	Schmidt	(R)	R+ 14.0	R+ 13.0	D+ 1.0
OH	3	Turner	(R)	R+ 3.3	R+ 4.2	R+ 0.9
OH	4	Jordan	(R)	R+ 14.3	R+ 14.7	R+ 0.4
OH	5	Latta	(R)	R+ 10.7	R+ 8.8	D+ 2.0
OH	6	Wilson	(D)	R+ 0.5	R+ 2.2	R+ 1.7
OH	7	Austria	(R)	R+ 6.6	R+ 7.0	R+ 0.4
OH	8	Boehner	(R)	R+ 13.3	R+ 14.2	R+ 0.9
OH	9	Kaptur	(D)	D+ 8.1	D+ 9.4	D+ 1.3
OH	10	Kucinich	(D)	D+ 7.7	D+ 8.2	D+ 0.5
OH	11	Fudge	(D)	D+ 32.1	D+ 32.6	D+ 0.5
OH	12	Tiberi	(R)	R+ 1.5	D+ 0.0	D+ 1.6
OH	13	Sutton	(D)	D+ 5.8	D+ 5.6	R+ 0.2
OH	14	LaTourette	(R)	R+ 3.1	R+ 2.7	D+ 0.4
OH	15	Kilroy	(D)	R+ 1.6	D+ 1.1	D+ 2.6
OH	16	Boccieri	(D)	R+ 4.4	R+ 3.7	D+ 0.7
OH	17	Ryan	(D)	D+ 13.6	D+ 11.9	R+ 1.7
OH	18	Space	(D)	R+ 6.7	R+ 6.5	D+ 0.1
OK	1	Sullivan	(R)	R+ 13.3	R+ 15.7	R+ 2.4
OK	2	Boren	(D)	R+ 5.3	R+ 13.7	R+ 8.4
OK	3	Lucas	(R)	R+ 18.3	R+ 23.7	R+ 5.4
OK	4	Cole	(R)	R+ 13.8	R+ 17.7	R+ 3.9
OK	5	Fallin	(R)	R+ 12.5	R+ 12.7	R+ 0.2
OR	1	Wu	(D)	D+ 4.9	D+ 8.0	D+ 3.1
OR	2	Walden	(R)	R+ 11.9	R+ 9.9	D+ 2.0
OR	3	Blumenauer	(D)	D+ 16.8	D+ 18.9	D+ 2.1
OR	4	Defazio	(D)	R+ 0.9	D+ 1.6	D+ 2.5
OR	5	Schrader	(D)	R+ 0.0	D+ 1.4	D+ 1.4
PA	1	Brady	(D)	D+ 35.3	D+ 35.2	R+ 0.1
PA	2	Fattah	(D)	D+ 38.4	D+ 37.7	R+ 0.6
PA	3	Dahlkemper	(D)	R+ 2.0	R+ 2.7	R+ 0.7
PA	4	Altmire	(D)	R+ 3.3	R+ 6.3	R+ 3.0
PA	5	Thompson	(R)	R+ 10.4	R+ 9.5	D+ 0.9
PA	6	Gerlach	(R)	D+ 1.5	D+ 4.1	D+ 2.6
PA	7	Sestak	(D)	D+ 3.0	D+ 3.6	D+ 0.6
PA	8	Murphy	(D)	D+ 2.5	D+ 1.8	R+ 0.7
PA	9	Shuster	(R)	R+ 15.7	R+ 16.9	R+ 1.2
PA	10	Carney	(D)	R+ 8.4	R+ 8.5	R+ 0.1
PA	11	Kanjorski	(D)	D+ 4.8	D+ 4.1	R+ 0.8
PA	12	Murtha	(D)	D+ 3.8	R+ 1.0	R+ 4.7
PA	13	Schwartz	(D)	D+ 7.3	D+ 6.6	R+ 0.8
PA	14	Doyle	(D)	D+ 21.1	D+ 19.0	R+ 2.1
PA	15	Dent	(R)	D+ 0.7	D+ 2.1	D+ 1.3
PA	16	Pitts	(R)	R+ 12.0	R+ 7.8	D+ 4.2
PA	17	Holden	(D)	R+ 7.4	R+ 6.0	D+ 1.4
PA	18	Murphy	(R)	R+ 2.8	R+ 6.0	R+ 3.2
PA	19	Platts	(R)	R+ 13.0	R+ 11.5	D+ 1.5
RI	1	Kennedy	(D)	D+ 15.6	D+ 13.6	R+ 2.1
RI	2	Langevin	(D)	D+ 11.8	D+ 9.0	R+ 2.8
SC	1	Brown	(R)	R+ 10.4	R+ 10.5	R+ 0.1
SC	2	Wilson	(R)	R+ 9.7	R+ 8.8	D+ 0.9
SC	3	Barrett	(R)	R+ 14.7	R+ 16.5	R+ 1.9
SC	4	Inglis	(R)	R+ 15.3	R+ 14.7	D+ 0.7
SC	5	Spratt	(D)	R+ 6.4	R+ 6.8	R+ 0.4
SC	6	Clyburn	(D)	D+ 10.6	D+ 11.6	D+ 1.0
SD	AL	Herseth	(D)	R+ 10.7	R+ 8.9	D+ 1.9
TN	1	Roe	(R)	R+ 14.7	R+ 20.9	R+ 6.3
TN	2	Duncan	(R)	R+ 11.9	R+ 16.2	R+ 4.3
TN	3	Wamp	(R)	R+ 9.4	R+ 13.3	R+ 3.9
TN	4	Davis	(D)	R+ 4.1	R+ 13.2	R+ 9.1
TN	5	Cooper	(D)	D+ 5.3	D+ 3.1	R+ 2.2
TN	6	Gordon	(D)	R+ 4.5	R+ 12.5	R+ 8.0
TN	7	Blackburn	(R)	R+ 12.6	R+ 17.4	R+ 4.7
TN	8	Tanner	(D)	R+ 0.3	R+ 6.0	R+ 5.7
TN	9	Cohen	(D)	D+ 17.3	D+ 22.7	D+ 5.4
TX	1	Gohmert	(R)	R+ 17.7	R+ 20.2	R+ 2.5
TX	2	Poe	(R)	R+ 12.5	R+ 12.7	R+ 0.2
TX	3	Johnson	(R)	R+ 18.0	R+ 13.5	D+ 4.5
TX	4	Hall	(R)	R+ 17.5	R+ 21.1	R+ 3.6
TX	5	Hensarling	(R)	R+ 16.0	R+ 16.5	R+ 0.5
TX	6	Barton	(R)	R+ 15.5	R+ 14.2	D+ 1.3
TX	7	Culberson	(R)	R+ 16.0	R+ 12.5	D+ 3.5
TX	8	Brady	(R)	R+ 20.0	R+ 24.2	R+ 4.2
TX	9	Green	(D)	D+ 20.0	D+ 22.3	D+ 2.3
TX	10	McCaul	(R)	R+ 13.7	R+ 10.0	D+ 3.7
TX	11	Conaway	(R)	R+ 26.0	R+ 28.2	R+ 2.2
TX	12	Granger	(R)	R+ 15.0	R+ 16.5	R+ 1.5
TX	13	Thornberry	(R)	R+ 25.5	R+ 28.7	R+ 3.2
TX	14	Paul	(R)	R+ 15.0	R+ 18.1	R+ 3.0
TX	15	Hinojosa	(D)	D+ 2.0	D+ 3.3	D+ 1.3
TX	16	Reyes	(D)	D+ 8.2	D+ 10.0	D+ 1.8
TX	17	Edwards	(D)	R+ 18.5	R+ 20.1	R+ 1.5
TX	18	Jackson-Lee	(D)	D+ 22.5	D+ 23.7	D+ 1.2
TX	19	Neugebauer	(R)	R+ 25.5	R+ 26.1	R+ 0.6
TX	20	Gonzalez	(D)	D+ 7.0	D+ 8.1	D+ 1.1
TX	21	Smith	(R)	R+ 17.0	R+ 13.5	D+ 3.5
TX	22	Olson	(R)	R+ 15.0	R+ 12.5	D+ 2.5
TX	23	Rodriguez	(D)	R+ 4.7	R+ 4.0	D+ 0.8
TX	24	Marchant	(R)	R+ 16.0	R+ 11.5	D+ 4.5
TX	25	Doggett	(D)	D+ 1.0	D+ 5.6	D+ 4.6
TX	26	Burgess	(R)	R+ 13.0	R+ 13.0	R+ 0.0
TX	27	Ortiz	(D)	R+ 2.0	R+ 2.0	D+ 0.1
TX	28	Cuellar	(D)	R+ 1.5	R+ 0.2	D+ 1.3
TX	29	Green	(D)	D+ 7.0	D+ 7.8	D+ 0.8
TX	30	Johnson	(D)	D+ 25.0	D+ 27.3	D+ 2.3
TX	31	Carter	(R)	R+ 17.2	R+ 13.7	D+ 3.5
TX	32	Sessions	(R)	R+ 11.5	R+ 8.0	D+ 3.5
UT	1	Bishop	(R)	R+ 22.5	R+ 21.5	D+ 1.1
UT	2	Matheson	(D)	R+ 17.7	R+ 14.9	D+ 2.8
UT	3	Chaffetz	(R)	R+ 27.1	R+ 25.8	D+ 1.3
VA	1	Wittman	(R)	R+ 9.7	R+ 7.3	D+ 2.4
VA	2	Nye	(D)	R+ 6.6	R+ 4.7	D+ 1.9
VA	3	Scott	(D)	D+ 17.5	D+ 20.1	D+ 2.6
VA	4	Forbes	(R)	R+ 5.6	R+ 4.5	D+ 1.1
VA	5	Perriello	(D)	R+ 6.4	R+ 5.3	D+ 1.2
VA	6	Goodlatte	(R)	R+ 12.3	R+ 11.8	D+ 0.4
VA	7	Cantor	(R)	R+ 11.4	R+ 8.8	D+ 2.6
VA	8	Moran	(D)	D+ 12.8	D+ 16.0	D+ 3.1
VA	9	Boucher	(D)	R+ 8.2	R+ 11.3	R+ 3.2
VA	10	Wolf	(R)	R+ 6.2	R+ 2.2	D+ 3.9
VA	11	Connolly	(D)	R+ 1.6	D+ 2.3	D+ 3.9
VT	AL	Welch	(D)	D+ 8.3	D+ 13.2	D+ 4.9
WA	1	Inslee	(D)	D+ 7.0	D+ 9.0	D+ 2.0
WA	2	Larsen	(D)	D+ 2.0	D+ 3.4	D+ 1.3
WA	3	Baird	(D)	R+ 0.6	R+ 0.2	D+ 0.4
WA	4	Hastings	(R)	R+ 13.9	R+ 13.0	D+ 1.0
WA	5	McMorris	(R)	R+ 7.8	R+ 6.8	D+ 0.9
WA	6	Dicks	(D)	D+ 4.9	D+ 4.9	D+ 0.0
WA	7	McDermott	(D)	D+ 29.5	D+ 31.5	D+ 2.0
WA	8	Reichert	(R)	D+ 1.8	D+ 3.3	D+ 1.6
WA	9	Smith	(D)	D+ 4.9	D+ 5.3	D+ 0.5
WI	1	Ryan	(R)	R+ 3.1	R+ 2.5	D+ 0.6
WI	2	Baldwin	(D)	D+ 12.7	D+ 14.9	D+ 2.3
WI	3	Kind	(D)	D+ 2.0	D+ 3.8	D+ 1.8
WI	4	Moore	(D)	D+ 19.9	D+ 21.7	D+ 1.8
WI	5	Sensenbrenner	(R)	R+ 13.3	R+ 12.3	D+ 1.0
WI	6	Petri	(R)	R+ 5.7	R+ 4.2	D+ 1.4
WI	7	Obey	(D)	D+ 1.0	D+ 2.3	D+ 1.3
WI	8	Kagen	(D)	R+ 4.7	R+ 1.7	D+ 2.9
WV	1	Mollohan	(D)	R+ 6.3	R+ 9.0	R+ 2.7
WV	2	Capito	(R)	R+ 5.9	R+ 7.8	R+ 1.9
WV	3	Rahall	(D)	R+ 0.3	R+ 6.6	R+ 6.3
WY	AL	Lummis	(R)	R+ 20.3	R+ 19.6	D+ 0.7

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.