Dave Wasserman has his Pres-by-county spreadsheet, and wwmiv has a congressional district PVI spreadsheet out there. I'm going to join the crowd and stick to the turf that I know best: California. More specifically, this is a spreadsheet of California State Legislature district PVIs, including both the state senate and the state assembly.
Update: Link removed.
For this spreadsheet, I used raw percentages, not two-party percentages. 2008 results were taken from Meridian Pacific, a GOP consulting firm (so I'm not linking to it), while 2012 results were culled the data from the counties' statements of vote.
As you can see, there are numerous gaps and missing numbers. Feel free to help fill in the blanks! Ok well, you have to do it in the comments below and I'll do the filling in. Also, feel free to correct any mistakes.
Once the spreadsheet is filled in (or when the Secretary of State comes out with a statement of vote supplement in February or April), I'll probably combine it with California congressional district PVI's that I'm (now openly announcing that I'm) stealing from wwmiv and compile a complete California district PVI sheet.
Below are some notes and proverbial asterisks of the spreadsheet that take a bit of explaining but are tangential to this diary. So unlike my other diaries and many other diaries on Daily Kos, reading below the Kossacks' Golden Poppy is optional, even discouraged for the faint of heart.
State senate districts
The senators' names listed in the even-numbered districts do not necessarily correspond to the actual senator for that district.
These state senators are (in order by district number) Berryhill, Rubio, Fuller, Padilla, Negrete McLeod, Hernandez, de Leon, Lieu, Price, Calderon, Wyland, and Anderson.
Here's why: while senators in odd-numbered districts (those elected in 2012) represent districts in the new 2011 commission-drawn maps, senators in even-numbered districts (those elected in 2010) are elected based on the old 2001 gerrymandered maps and continue to represent them until 2014. Special elections in the even-numbered districts are held under the old lines. This leads to a situation where some areas have two state senators and other places have none.
For example, in the spreadsheet, SD-08 is listed as Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto). The new SD-08 mostly corresponds to the areas he is currently representing in the state senate, and he plans to run there in 2014. However, his actual district number based on the old districts is SD-14, and he continues to represent areas in the old SD-14 until 2014. The 2010 SD-08 is represented by Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), who continues to represent his old district on the San Francisco Peninsula (this district incidentally got vaporized in redistricting). In this case, half of San Francisco, which is in both the old SD-08 and new SD-11 (represented by Democrat Mark Leno) now have both Yee and Leno as their senators.
Conversely, the new SD-28 is located in the Mojave Desert and has its state senator elected in 2014. The old SD-28 is in West LA and is represented by Ted Lieu (D-Torrance). Lieu continues to represent the old SD-28. However, since much of what is now SD-28 was in the old SD-37 (which, being an odd-numbered district, is now gone), this leaves places like Palm Springs and Lake Elsinore without a state senator for two years. Yes, it's really weird.
For the purposes of my spreadsheet, I use the new 2011 districts, and put the even-numbered senators' names where they are because their old districts correspond best to the new district listed, and most of those people will run in those districts in two years. This means Yee's name is left out (even though he's still very much a member of the state senate) and SD-28 is simply called "(Temecula/Coachella)" on the spreadsheet, as there's no clean fit (the old SD-37's incumbent, Bill Emmerson (R-Hemet), ran and won in SD-23 in 2012).
If anything, this election shows how much more Democratic California can be, and it's still on the way to becoming even bluer. The strongest swings towards Team Blue occurred especially among Latinos, with swings above seven points in heavily Latino AD-27 (eastern San Jose) and AD-53 (Downtown Los Angeles). Heavily Asian districts also saw a huge shift to Democrats, as noted by SD-10 and AD-25 (southern East Bay), AD-49 (western San Gabriel Valley), and AD-72 (Huntington Beach/Little Saigon).
Swing districts are also moving swiftly in the blue column. Places like SD-05 (San Joaquin), AD-08 (Sacramento suburbs), AD-32 (Hanford/Bakersfield), and AD-65 (Fullerton/Buena Park) are now shifting rapidly leftward. Potential Dem trouble spots like SD-34 (Santa Ana/Huntington Beach) have appreciably tacked Democratic. New opportunities are opening up, such as SD-29 (Diamond Bar/Fullerton), AD-40 (San Bernardino), and AD-60 (Corona/Norco). If the GOP thinks they're done falling now, then I would advise them to reach for a parachute instead of a ladder.
Of course, there are areas where their PVIs went rightward instead. There's southern Orange County, which I think is simply reverting to form. There's AD-16 (Walnut Creek/Livermore) and AD-50 (Beverly Hills/Santa Monica), which I want to label as Hills of the Easily Disappointed. The Sierra foothills also became redder, solidifying Placer County's replacement of Orange County as the new Republican bastion in California.
The smallest PVI changes were mostly in rich areas outside of southern Orange County, such as AD-24 (Menlo Park/Palo Alto), AD-41 (Pasadena/Glendora), and AD-55 (Diamond Bar/Yorba Linda).
Of course, our favorite election cycle shocker, AD-36 (Lancaster/Palmdale), gets a paragraph all on its own. The 2008 PVI of R+4.5 would indicate it was getting competitive, but there are so many riper pickings ahead of it. So it was normal that this slipped under the radar, because it wasn't supposed to be on anyone's radar. Now, it's almost R+1.5, a near three-point shift, and other GOP districts aren't far behind. Watch out, they're coming our way faster and sooner than you think.