Might I add that this is likely not going to work.

Not because we can't win these races but because it's a completely different issue on the House side versus the Senate.

Schumer wants this money to run ads in big, expensive TV markets along I-95 to gin up Democrats in New Jersey and NoVa. Although perhaps not the most valuable strategy it makes sense in a Senate race to make your competition ad for ad.

But in House....there's a slightly different problem. Namely, some districts are not going to have an urban center with a TV affiliate. Of course, there's always somewhere they can see the ad broadcast from, but in some districts they might have to rob Peter (running in CD-11) to show ads for Paul (in CD-12).

So the loans sound like good ideas, but in reality, they won't matter much because from here on in the RNC and Republicans are taught not to worry about TV ads but instead focus on their GOTV efforts. And you can't built that in two/three weeks...no more how much money you have.

All this said, there's no harm is giving districts in the second and third term some "allowance money" but we probably won't need a giant loan to do that.

PA-04 Hart vs Altmire (D) and PA-18 Tim Murphy vs
Kluko(D) would be good investment targets. Both districts are majority D, although full of "Casey Democrats", and there is indication Altmire is running closer to Hart than it appears on the surface. Hart is not especially popular in the 4th
but hasn't had credible competition ever. Tim Murphy is another not very well-liked incumbent who  has been in the same spot as Hart - no competition.

A little money here could perhaps flip the entire Pennsylvanian delegation to majority Dem.

Take a district like WA-05 out in Eastern WA, where the DCCC has decided to sink in some cash.  Peter Goldmark has pulled within the margin of error against incumbent Cathy McMorris, but polls show he still has a huge name ID disadvantage.  If it does nothing else, a large, sustained TV buy will purchase him name ID.  Meanwhile, McMorris will try to match him dollar for dollar in the belief that all she has to do to win is not be outspent, but her money can't buy her ID she already has.

You can't ride this wave if voters don't know your name.  And that's something money absolutely can buy.

Y'know, if Rahm is smart then he invests in the really interesting emerging states and then leans on Howard Dean to funnel some money back to the DCCC from those newly-established DNC outposts -- not as a shakedown, but as an investment.

This needs to be a leap of faith.

Don't forget CT-02.

This is the easiest and most underfunded pickup in CT.

Give some love to Joe Courtney.

Its time to think big and swing for the fences. This is a historical opportunity and hopefully every Dem activist is doing their fair share of campaign volunteering.

We need to put pedal to the metal and get those 100 extra votes in each race. What has really opened my eyes is that the 1994 Repub landslide that margins of victory in many races were in the 1000 vote range. That's why even 100 votes on Nov 7th can make the difference.

If you need to borrow, you cannot really afford to pass up cash.

And where and how the money is spent is, of course, the prerogative of the person whose name is on the note.

One unmentioned possibility is direct-mail. The most devastating attacks can often be delivered this way because there is more room for words, pictures, and documentation. And it often is useful for spreading panic because it is not signalled by a preliminary "buy." Two or three hard pieces can sometimes land before the other side can respond.

I hope it's not too little, too late in many cases. Some posters have mentioned not enough name ID for the Democrat. In my neighboring district, NV-3, the problem is Jon Porter has long since defined the Democratic challenger Tessa Hafen. His commercials are "comically misleading" as described by a local reporter, but they are airing all day and label Hafen "a political opportunist who can't tell the truth," and imply she is a carpetbagger. It's revolting to the point I want to track Porter down and belt him in the mouth, but I know it's been effective and late money might not be enough to turn it around.

Similar to Jim Gibbons' ads in the gov race, non-stop effective commercials from a pathetic politician. The casino interests generally back the Republicans so they have substantial financial advantage. That's another reason Nevada has been slower to flip than the progressive netroots has anticipated. I don't know who does the local GOP commercials but they are slick and leave a lasting impression, far superior to the typical commercial I've seen on AdWatch or elsewhere. Undoubtedly I'm less bullish nationwide than I should be due to seeing local spots hammering the Democrat on seemingly every channel day and night.

If you were running a business and you had 3 promising leads but you only needed to close 1 to make a profit, you'd put everything into the most likely lead, especially if you were pretty sure it was going to close.

Now, politics isn't exactly the same, but the job of the DCCC is to win Democratic seats.  And primarily their job is to win 218 seats.

So this is what you have to do with the money.  You have to decide what districts are completely safe and don't need anymore money, and then you don't give them anymore.  It may sound harsh, but if they are completely safe their opponents fundraising has probably dried up and they are probably having an easy time raising money themselves.  I'm going to guess here that we are currently in the 210 range for seats like this.

You've got 8 more seats to get to a majority.  So you take this additional money, and you find 20 or so seats and you make sure they are fully funded.  These are the 20 seats you are most likely to win but not assured of.  Here is why.  Let's say you are leading in the polls 48-42 here.  You will probably win.  But there may be an indepdnent expenditure group, or the NRA, or the RNC that is about to dump $1 million in.  And in order to maintain 48-42, you need to outspend or spend at parity at this point.  So this is where the bulk of the money goes.

Beyond this, maybe you throw a little here and there.  But the problem is, if this is a wave election, it's a wave election and there's not much the campaigns can do about it.  You've probably got 30 additional seats after the 210 + 20 most likelies that could benefit from a big infusion.

But, the thing is, you must play the odds.  The odds tell you that every one of those 20 seats could most definitely use a big infusion to shore up what is already a likely victory.  You can afford to do that.  The odds also tell you that everyone of the next 30 seats could probably benefit from the additional cash, but maybe some won't actually become winners and maybe some will be flukes and win no matter what.  So the question becomes, is there anyway to determine which seats can actually benefit?  The answer, sadly, is no.

What I'm getting at is there are seats in the 30 second tier races that could use $500K to $1M and that will mean a victory.  But if you parcel it up equally and give everyone $150K or so, it won't do anything for most of your races and in the races that could have used the big bucks, it won't be enough.

It's hard to call it wasting money, but that's what it comes down to.  The DCCC's job is to use the money they raise to get as many guaranteed wins as possible in as many races.  And quite frankly, if they pore tons of money into 230 or so races and end up winning only 225 or 218, it will be a massive success and victory.  Would we like to shoot for 230 or 240 instead?  Sure, but I'd rather make a more solid bet on 218 than a speculative bet on 230 that could actually net 215.

Hope that makes sense.  Of course, the beauty of the netroots funding is the DCCC can do it's job, and we can still send our money wherever we believe in a candidate who is out there taking a chance.