Let's start with a known fact: Despite the occasional success, the DCCC has dropped the ball in candidate recruitment and support. This is well known:
"They don't have the candidates," said New York Rep. Thomas Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, arguing that Democrats have failed to recruit top-tier contenders in target districts in North Carolina, Alabama, New Hampshire and elsewhere.
What can be done, given the known gap in fund-raising and organization, to get ourselves even?
Stop trying to match the organizational structure of the GOP. Let's supplement the "efforts" of the DCCC and the DNC with a new organization solely devoted to candidate recruitment at the state gov't and House of Representatives level. Chair it with a big-league Dem. that needs some assignment to stay in the party (and public) eye. Focus on devloping in-roads, candidate name recognition and grassroots fundraising (mini "moveon.orgs").
I understand this is already what is happening, but obviously not well and certainly inefficiently. A relatively small, talented organization focusing on 20-30 disctricts over four years could really do some damage.
This process will take time, one or two election cycles, but think of the benefits: Select GOP districts (ones not horribly one sided) with strong Dem. name recognition. These races are ideal for gains as these races are where fund-raising is effective to a limit, and not a constant linear positive correlation (I've noted before that of 33 random House races selected from states that held Senate elections in 2002, 11 of the losing candidates matched or outspent the winner).
Why do the Dems continue to play in a game where the rules necessarily give their opponents an advantage? Let's scale back the role of the DCCC to a few basic responsibilities and set up a new organization to focus on a key deficiency. If we completely remake our recruitment, we give ourselves an advantage and force the GOP to adjust.