How many volunteers would it require? One day at lunch during an assessment blitz, an organizing colleague of mine and I figured that 700,000 volunteers, properly placed, working 20 hours a week for nine weeks (Labor day until election day) would be able to canvass every person of voting age population in the country twice during the final two months of a campaign. Assuming that the volunteers will come from concentrated areas and not be evenly placed, let's say we need 1,000,000 volunteers. Then, assuming that most volunteers won't want to put in 200 hours for a single house campaign, let's double it, and say we need 2,000,000 volunteers to properly canvass the entire nation.

Are these numbers over estimating on the high end? Are these numbers even possible? Personally, at the very least I think the money is possible, since Democratic candidates for President will spend more than $400M this year, and 527's will toss in at least another $150M. At the very least, it would seem that in 2006, with no Presidential election, this sort of warchest could be raised through candidates and 527's combined. The required number of volunteers is less likely, but considering all currently elected Democrats, all Democratic committee members, and the ever-growing number of people who attend Democratic Meetups, we could come up with the necessary 60 million volunteer hours required to assess the country twice in two months.

That's $20K each. Now, the DCCC would see that as a waste of resources. As you saw on the DCCC's blog, a single $20K boon is pretty much worthless to their way of thinking. But that's the mind of scarcity for ya.

At least one funneling channel exists (ActBlue), why not take the bull by the horns (and the project in hand) and bypass the DCCC (or supplement the efforts they choose to make) and identify quickly which campaigns have enough cash and which need quick, substantial money support.  This would take a coordinated effort by many liberal/progressive/Democrat blogs, but that's not impossible - as the Schrader campaign indicates.  $30K isn't $30 million, but the principal is the same.

Advertising on TV/Cable is very expensive in some areas, and TV/Cable is going to get very clogged in Sept and Oct.  So encourage the recipients of 'blog money' to strongly consider other less expensive (and probably more effective) channels to the voters.

The basic points made above are all valid: we aren't seriously contesting enough House seats.  

How can we fix that problem without the DCCC?

I really like these ideas. I especially like the idea of spending serious money in "safe" districts, striking fear into the hearts of box-turtle lovers throughout the nation :) I'd sign up. I'd sign my friends up.

DFA alone could do it for crying out loud!!!

Just FYI, the daily traffic at Blog for America is 33,786. See for yourself:

http://www.truthlaidbear.com/TrafficRanking.php

That's 1/3 of the way to 100,000. Where are the 66,000+ other people going to come from? And remember, that 33,786 represents repeat visitors and Google search referrals, too.

And how many of those 33,786 will give when asked? I counted the total number of donors to the dKos 8 candidates - it's slightly under 3000 total (and we know many people gave to multiple candidates, so it's probably more like 2000 total). Their average donation was about $50. Daily Kos is the blog traffic champ, at over 130,000 visitors per day, yet fewer than 2% of those visitors gave to candidates that are all extremely popular within the community and which Kos himself flogged for weeks. And you believe that DFA could find 100,000 donors just like that to give $200 apiece?

I take no joy in raining on your parade, but let's not lose touch with reality. Getting anywhere near the goal you've set will take a ton of work and a pile of startup money. The DCCC is already doing that work, and for their efforts they get dismissed as incompetent, power-mad, and irrelevant. You want to replace them, you're going to have to do more than just wish for a pony.

I can't say for certain about 2006, but I can say that this time around, the Democrats SHOULD HAVE been recruiting Gulf War veterans to run against all the chickenhawk incumbents.  Running 80-100 Gulf War veterans against the chickenhawk brigade would have sent a statement like you wouldn't believe.

This is what a REAL political party would do. Just to provide a realistic benchmark to judge the Dems by.  

Start with national strategic thinking like that, and the money and volunteers will follow.