MyDD :: What Resources Are Necessary to Seriously Challenge 80 GOP Incumbents?

What Resources Are Necessary to Seriously Challenge 80 GOP Incumbents?

by Chris Bowers, Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 10:36:33 PM EST

My post below complaining about the lack of aggressiveness in the DCCC did not go over very smoothly, so in the spirit of openness I would like to rephrase my complaint in the form of a question and ask all those people "in the know" (as well as those people, such as myself, not in the know) what level of resources would be required to launch a serious challenge against eighty GOP House incumbents every two years. I complained about the DCCC not being aggressive enough, so I should make clear what level of aggression I would find satisfactory. I want 80 serious challenges to GOP House incumbents every two years and a Democratic name on the ballot in all 435 districts.

I want to know what is necessary to make this happen. I want this because, quite frankly, I have typically found Democratic efforts to retake the Senate and Presidency pretty close to satisfactory, but I do not feel the same way about the House. I offer my estimates in the first comment to this post. Let me know what you feel is necessary.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 29 Comments :: Post a Comment

My Estimate (none / 0)

How much money would be required? If a $1M is needed to mount a serious challenge, the challengers alone need $80M. If an incumbent needs $1M to win, then we would need, hopefully, $240M for the Democratic incumbents. Toss in a quarter of a million for each of the "not serious" Dem challenges to GOP incumbents, round up for imbalanced fundraising, and $400M would seem like enough money every two years.

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.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 10:36:42 PM EST

Re: My Estimate (none / 0)

This is a once in a lifetime perfect storm of financing for Kerry - I doubt this kind of warchest can be raised in 2006 if Kerry wins.

by Matt Stoller on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Estimate (none / 0)

I don't know, i kinda think it might be like blog traffic that reaches a plateau, it doesn't go back down, not when everyone is sticking around. I expect the Republicans, if they do get crushed this election, to figure out things pretty quickly.

I think we'll probably see the internet fundraising and organizing play an even bigger role in the 2008 primary buildup than it did in the 2004 one, regardless of which party is out of power.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Estimate (none / 0)

I changed my mind. Two things, though:

If Kerry isn't a good President, he will have a tough time for the 2006 getting funds.
The power of money in politics is going down. It's not gone, but it's not as high as it once used to be.

by Matt Stoller on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 01:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Estimate (none / 0)

#2 is exactly right.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 08:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Estimate (none / 0)

"The power of money in politics is going down."

That's a good point Matt. And what is replacing it, of is it just diffusion? Interesting how that correlates with les concentrative media (now the correlation doesn't equal causation crew comes stomping in).

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 11:55:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Estimate (none / 0)

Actually,

Bush is going to win and you guys are going to be crushed that so much money didn't work. Hence, no spectacular fundraising in the future.

Liberals will make a comeback when they realize that it is better to be right than to get power (of course, better to have both). They will then hunker down in thinktanks and innovate, just as the conservatives did 4 decades ago.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 08:25:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Resources Are Necessary to Seriously Chal (none / 0)

The DCCC just raised $9.3M or whatever this last quarter, now it's easy to just say, hey, fork over $1M of that to fund the top 80. In fact, I'd take it further, and say, fork over that $1M to the next 50 not in your top 30 that are going to get the rest.

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.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:19:11 PM EST

Re: What Resources Are Necessary to Seriously Chal (none / 0)

<<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.>>

No, that's being practical.

$20,000 doesn't feed the bulldog, and doesn't make a dent against an entrenched incumbent.

To put that in perspective, $20,000 pays for about a third of the postage for a mailing to the likely voters in a Congressional district. Or just over half of the postage to likely voting Dems and independents.

In other words, you're throwing a relatively insignificant amount of money at a campaign that doesn't have a good chance to win in the first place... when that money can be put to more efficient and effective use in actual competitive districts.

So, frankly, it is a waste of resources.

But wouldn't, you ask, that $20,000 help the campaigns to demonstrate credibility and an ability to win with PACs? No. Not when you've got the other 49 campaigns getting the same amount all going to the same PACs and big donors saying "Hey, look at me!"

All you're managing to accomplish is spreading resources thinly.

That, my Democratic friends, is what Bush does with the military.

It isn't what the DCCC should be doing with its money.

Finally, before all the DCCC-bashing gets out of hand, think of two words:

Stephanie. Herseth.

If not for the DCCC, Herseth, would likely be running against a Republican incumbent in a Republican state.

Congressman Larry Diedrich has a pretty rotten ring to it, doesn't it?

Not to mention the fact that thanks to the DCCC, Ben Chandler's special election turned into a cakewalk.

There isn't an election cycle that goes by without someone griping about who is or isn't getting support from the DCCC. And every election cycle, the DCCC makes mistakes (just like the RNCC).

It can't be avoided because they're human... just like the rest of us.

Taking money out of competitive races in order to throw small amounts at candidates with a much smaller chance of winning would just compound the unavoidable mistakes.

The 2nd tier candidates who can demonstrate on their own that they can be competitive will attract the DCCC's attention. And the attention of the PACs. And now, with the advent of internet fundraising, the blogosphere makes it easier for them to do so.

But until those candidates demonstrate that ability, suggesting that the DCCC throw money at them just doesn't make any sense.

It sucks, but that's reality.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 02:08:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Resources Are Necessary to Seriously Chal (5.00 / 0)

We are putting out a Meyer Times newspaper Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 for $4,000 for 36,000 copies. With paid canvassers and insert costs to small town newspapers we can deliver all 36k copies to swing households in our race for about $6,500 total.

This gives us a message that we can deliver to our 25,000 voter swing universe at a cost far below what traditional mailings cost. We're picking high content over high gloss as a matter of economic necessity - try fundraising for hard money in Martin Frost's shadow - I feel like a dog scrounging for table scraps some days.

But the fact remains that it is possible to run a strong, viable campaign against an incumbent, particularly a arrogant, out-of-touch, corrupt incumbent like Joe Barton and win.

Morris Meyer

Democratic Congressional Candidate
Texas 6th District
www.meyer04.us
morris@meyer04.us
817.795.3642

by MorrisMeyer on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 09:42:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Since I posted in the first one and no one seemed (none / 0)

to respond to it...here it is again: (I calculated for 40 seats)

Do the math...

40 seats to have $500,000 for funds = $20,000,000...

If 100,000 people were to give money, they would only need to give $200 each...

So that is $5 per House race!!!!

You mean to tell me that we can't give 100,000 people to kick in some cash?

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

This needs to be organized and the group to do it is the DCCC...the tools are out there...the blogsphere is ready, it just need direction and a nifty graphic to watch tick off the cash...

It isn't just about winning...you would have to be very uninformed to not know that most of the Republicans in these districts are funneling cash to those 15 districts we are trying to get...

Spending this kind of cash would scare the bejebbus out of them and dry up this source of funds....they would need to spend cash on their own elections...

And that is as important as winning the elections. It would make winning those other 15 easier, at the same time we may actually pick off some of those 40 seats...

Statistically, 1/3rd of candidates who spend $700,000 or more in a race win....

In an election year that is bad for one party...that number goes up to 60%+

Fortune favors the bold for christ sake!!!!!!

That's why the DCCC is falling down on the job....this would take less than two weeks and change the whole landscape of the cash flow for the Repugs up and down the ticket!!!

And for the DCCC apologist making the rounds who responded to my last post...here's your answer:

If the donations are funneled through ActBlue, the cost would be 2% of each donation...

$20,000,000 x .02 = $400,000
$400,000 x .02 = $8,000
$8,000 x .02 = $160
$160 x .02 = $3.20, lets make it $4

So the total is $408,164

So $20,408,164 x .02 = $20,000,000.72

So we would have to raise $20,408,164 and divided by 100,000 (which by the way is a pathetic amount of people...we should easily be able to raise from 1,000,000)...you get

$204.08

Wow..you are right....each person would have to absorb an additional $4.08....insurmountable!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pathetic really.....I believe its all about controlling the money, and the DCCC doesn't want to lose control of doling out the cash....so rather than hit em hard, we have people engaged in a pissing match...

PS: I did contact Peolsi, the DCCC and Kerry....but something tells me they won't see the light....

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:12 PM EST

Mo Money (none / 0)

Pretty wild. Good numbers though--I'll have to think about them further. I really believe this is a doable task.

by Chris Bowers on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 12:09:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mo Money (none / 0)

Now that I'm registered....

I really want to make DeLay cry election night...

No, I want to make him cry when he realizes that he has a candidate with $500,000 running against him....I want the pain to last!!!!!!!!!!!

We really need to go after these guys!!

The desire to to this is out there....I can feel it!

by Nazgul35 on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 12:23:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Some numbers (none / 0)

You mean to tell me that we can't give 100,000 people to kick in some cash?

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.

by kuff on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 08:26:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And some more numbers (none / 0)

From the blog of Christine Cegelis, one of the Dean Dozens, quoting from an (unlinked) article in TheHill.com:

The once-mighty Howard Dean fundraising machine appears to be sputtering as the former Vermont governor attempts to get like-minded Democrats elected to office.
[...]
The campaign of Jeff Smith, who is hoping to replace retiring Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), received 10 online contributions in the three weeks before the Dean endorsement. In contrast, Smith's campaign received 85 online contributions, for a total of $3,500, in the three weeks after the endorsement.
Christine Cegelis, who is running against Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) said it has been hard to raise money but estimates that the Dean endorsement added "maybe $5,000" to her campaign coffers. Dean recently visited Illinois and urged his supporters to help Cegelis.
Dean also stumped in Missouri last week for Senate candidate Nancy Farmer, Smith and Maria Chapelle-Nadal, who is running for the state House.
Dave Parker, campaign manager for Oklahoma congressional candidate Kalyn Free, said that fundraising has picked up but that the added support is not in the "tens of thousands."
Don Weigel, spokesman for Samara Barend, who is running in New York's 29th District, where Rep. Amo Houghton (R) is retiring, said the increase in donations was "at least a few thousand dollars."
Democracy for America spokeswoman Laura Gross said that comparing the way Dean supporters contributed to the candidate and those he endorsed at the "height of the presidential race" to the Dean Dozen candidates is like "comparing apples and oranges."
Gross also pointed out that Dean supporters, instead of focusing on contributing to one campaign, now spread their financial support among many candidates, which could help explain why the Dean Dozen campaigns do not notice a significant uptick in their fundraising operations.

Still think it'd be easy to get 100,000 people to kick in $200 apiece?

by kuff on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 09:18:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And some more numbers (none / 0)

"comparing apples and oranges."

huh? More like watermelons and blueberrys.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 12:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And some more numbers (none / 0)

Of course I think we can get to that amount....

Easy!

Part of the problem is we have too many people who love to say it can't be done...don't even try it...

Part of the reason is they don't believe that what happened with the Dean campaign was "real" and part because they want to control the dispersion of money through established Dem Party organizations...

If this was accomplished, it would severly undermine the ability of House leadership to twist arms with a threat of with holding money....

The Dean camp has a mailing list of over 500,000...the Kerry camp has more, add in Kucinich, Clark and Edwards you probably have a list of up to 1 million....

Run an ad just before the Kerry and Edwards acceptance speech and you could push that out to 10,000,000 people...we would only need a 10% response rate...

Here's my question for you....

Why don't we just try it and see? What are you afraid of? Succeeding?

by Nazgul35 on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 01:42:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And some more numbers (none / 0)

Hey, you want to try it, knock yourself out. I'd love to be proven wrong. All I'm saying, and you haven't said anything to counter me, is that this is not going to be easy. We've already got the example of Howard Dean pushing his kind of candidate, and the results are way less than what you project. Show me why you're right and I'm wrong.

by kuff on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 01:57:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence... (none / 0)

I can't tell you that a plane will crash tomorrow because I don't know what tomorrow is going to be like...

So your sitting here telling me it won't work because...what?

It's never been tried! Why don't you think it should be tried?

You haven't answered that particular question....why not try it?

What are you afraid is going to happen if we do?

The only answer I can come up with is that too many formal organizations within the Party are more interested in using the cash raised for their own purposes of controlling said candidate in the future! They wouldn't want to surrender control of the cash for fear of losing control....pure and simple...

This can not be done by a single blogger, or even a person who visits blogs....so your "hey why don't you do it" misses the mark badly!

This will require organization from the DCCC, The House leadership, the Party's traditional interest groups, the blogsphere, the new grass roots orgs, Senator Kerry, etc....not something I can do single handed....

As to Dean pushing his candidate, you said it yourself..."his kind of candidate" (which btw suggests a certain amount of bias on your part based upon your wording)....

I am talking about everyone joining in to raise $20,000,000....a one time shot....and you think we can't do it? I would suggest that the evidence suggest you are wrong (you must not have read the bottom half of my first post or my response to you)...because I tell you...

if you are right, than we will never win back the House...until we put a strain on the ability of the Repugs to get and raise cash we will never be able to make inroads against them....

You might be willing to accept another eight years of Republican control of the House...but I'm not!

Strike while the iron is hot..

by Nazgul35 on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 04:09:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We're talking past each other here (none / 0)

I never said this couldn't work, or that it shouldn't be tried. I disagreed (strongly) with your characterization that it would be easy, and that DFA could do it by themselves if they wanted to. I cited evidence from candidates that the DFA organization actually is supporting that its power to raise funds for them is quite limited. I've said and am saying again this will take time, effort, money, and organization, and even with all those things there'd be no guarantee that you wouldn't cannibalize other worthy recipients of campaign cash.

I also don't understand why you think the DCCC, which has had its best fundraising period ever, has been ineffective at doing what you want. What is it they're not doing that some other organization can do better? And if you say "candidate recruitment", I'll ask why that isn't a job for the county and state party organizations.

I do agree your goal - one I'd love to see met, believe me - is worth working for. Simply stating it isn't going to help make it happen, though. And yes, I do think it's incumbent on you to do more. Isn't that the message of Howard Dean and the blogosphere? "You have the power"? I don't mean to be snarky here, I'm trying to encourage you to do something to make your idea a reality. Having a goal is great, but what's your plan to achieve it?

by kuff on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 06:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We're talking past each other here (none / 0)

Agreed...

I actually am not being critical of the DCCC...in fact, I think the Party has been very receptive to the rebirth of the grass roots...

But there is much waste and missed opportunities...

I haven't said I am going to quit trying....I am contact verious organizations because I do believe this will require all the groups I listed to make the burden as small as possible for everyone...therefore no group would take the whole hit..

I think everyone thinks there is a finite amount of dollars out there and no one organization wants to be the one to squander their fundraising potential...or worse, fall short...

I used the Dean campaign as an example of what they are capable of...I think the promotion of 400 candidates by the Dean camp has diluted their potential (too much noise).

Give the people one thing to focus on across all the groups, make the numbers small enough that everyone will say...hey, i can afford that!!!

by Nazgul35 on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 10:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And some more numbers (none / 0)

PS: I have posted over a The Stakeholder and JesseLee says it's a good idea...so maybe it will get done

by Nazgul35 on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 04:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why it isn't done (none / 0)

People above have it correct. Even $250K is enough to mount a credible challenge in most House districts-- if you devote it to shoeleather. If every person who votes for Kerry gives $10 per year, there's enough to finance candidates in every district and every senatorial, plus the presidency.

I can tell you why this isn't done. Money=control. It's to the advantage of power brokers at all levels to prevent the average citizen from believing he/she owns the government. One other reason-- cost; cost of solicitation but especially cost of recordkeeping.

We must do this if we are to reclaim our democracy.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 01:36:56 AM EST

If the DCCC doesn't want to do it (none / 0)

why try to pressure them into something they may have motives for not doing, or are too timid to undertake?

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?

"Pay any price, bear any burden"

by JimPortlandOR on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 02:23:43 AM EST

ActBlue (none / 0)

Needless to say: we're in.

Step 1: create the message

Step 2: turn the blogosphere from givers into raisers.

The average contribution to Ginny Schrader through ActBlue
was right at $30. Now, that's a lot of people who are giving
because Markos, Jerome, Stephen and others asked them to.

Now we need to take that to the next level, and turn those
givers into raisers. The math (as explained above) is
straightforward -- we now need to bring people to the next level,
and ask them to raise from their non-blogging friends.

Give $30 -- now raise $300.

Want Blue States? ActBlue.

by brahn on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 02:02:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

mechanics question (none / 0)

Can someone talk about how the money is spent? Take the $1M figure for a serious challenge, just as an example. Is that mostly for ad buys? If so, is it TV? I'm wondering if there are possible alternatives. But only idly - I know that just having the money is in itself taken as a benchmark of "seriousness" by the media.

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.

by tatere on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 07:42:19 AM EST

Start At The Top (5.00 / 0)

The main resource we are lacking is CANDIDATES--candidates who immediately put the Republicans back on their heels, so that the incumbent is on the defensive from Day One. This may seem an impossible task on a widespread basis, but I submit that it is not.

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.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 09:46:20 AM EST

Thoughts (none / 0)

It's interesting this year. I've donated more money, by orders of magnitude, than I ever have before, to Presidential candidates Dean (my true love), Clark, Kerry, and to Senate and Congressional candidates nationally.

Here in badly gerrymandered California, where we have no competitive federal races, my liberal friends are doing the same, finding races across the country where they can put their money.

None of us have any faith in the party-run organizations. Not quite sure why, but I want some new voices, new faces, and don't have faith that organizations run by incumbents are going to bring me the type of candidates I want.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 12:39:05 PM EST

Two problems (none / 0)

I think there are two distinct problems being discussed:
A)how to raise more money
B)how to distribute that money to maximize our gain

The question started out as B- is the DCCC allocating money optimally, or are they ignoring winnable races bc they don't have a high enough profile initially? Are they creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by not providing enough seed money to enough races to figure out which races are actually worth money?

But I hear people now giving answers to A- how to we raise the money to contest every seat?

Ok, great, I've love an answer to A that let us do that. I don't think that there is a simple one, but Im all for anything remotely reasonable that increases our cash flow.

But, barring a huge cash-raising advantage on our part, we still have to deal with question B. Who gets the dollars?

I think that the DCCC ought to have stronger 2nd-tier race funding, give 'em some cash and let the strong candidates prove themselves with something in their pocket, rather than leave them to fight with nothing to prove that they're worth funding. Doing that means we might be leaving excellent candidates on the floor, and probably(?) discourages quality candidates from entering 2nd tier races.
And, even a losing investment might keep an Republican incumbent busy and unwilling to donate to other key races. That is, giving seed money to a losing cadidate is not necessarily a waste. And, of course, being competitive at any level helps the other levels, so this helps us in the statehouse, governor's mansion, etc.

But I fully admit that that opinion is based on not much data- Im not a political pro.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 04:46:28 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.