Last fall, I used the catchphrase "Voter Genome" to describe what GOTV technology should be trying to crack. Now a company has taken up the name and the cause. The team that cracked the human genome is now going after the American voter. They have launched the Voter Genome Project. It promises to be a full service Democratic analytics and consulting firm applying cutting-edge technology from Silicon Valley and Biotech IT to deliver the right message to the right voter at the right time.

VGP performs multi-hundreds-of-variables analysis on 200,000,000 voter records in minutes using the most advanced technology available.  Here's what VGP promises to deliver:

We can find and rank the top 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 of a candidate's supporters (or potential donors) and further break those supporters down into geographic, psychographic or demographic subgroups.

We can find the independent and Republican voters who are either likely or persuadable to change their registration to vote in a closed Democratic primary.

We can find the 2,000,000 newly enrolled voters nationwide who are most likely to support a particular candidate.

We can find every person in the country whose household income is over $200,000 and who is a likely strong supporter of a particular candidate so that the campaign can do a targeted fundraising appeal to get them to max out this quarter.

We can find 500,000 unregistered voters who are likely to be enthusiastic supporters of a candidate early enough to register them to vote.

The VGP is being spearheaded by Silicon Valley veteran Ron Turiello and guru-pollster Tom Wilson (bios here), both on the project full time.

Crossbows in 1415 bring an army to its knees before an outnumbered but merry few... Cannons in 1453 cause the collapse of a great empire... Communications intercepts in 1942 dispatch a modern armada to the bottom of the Pacific...

Agincourt, Constantinople, and Midway are reminders that in war, victory often goes to the side with better technology.

And so it is in politics.

Sure, the presence of a great cause or a skillful general often matters too.  But technology often trumps. After all, the DCCC's foul-mouthed ballet dancer is undeniably a masterfully relentless tactician.  So his underwhelming win-loss record ("Why did the DCCC lose, or is in the process of losing, eight of its top fifteen targets?") must owe itself to something other than incompetence.

Technology perhaps?

PART I: True or False questions
1. The DCCC formulated a target list of vulnerable Republican seats early in 2006.
Here are eight of the top twenty target seats of the DCCC.  The Democrats won all of these seats.  True or False?

NM 1  Wilson (Madrid)
PA 6  Gerlach (Lois Murphy)
IL 6   Hyde/Roskam (Tammy Duckworth)
CT 4 Shays (Farrell)
CA 50 Cunningtham/Bilbray (Busby)
Ohio 1 Chabot (Cranley)
CO 4  Musgrave (Paccioni)
MN 6 Kennedy/Bachman (Wetterling)

2. By summer, these three additional DCCC target seats shot up the list.  They all won too.  True or False?

OH 15 Pryce (Kilroy)
FL 13 Harris/Buchanon (Jennings)
NY 26 Reynolds (Davis)

You wouldn't know it from reading the mainstream press, but there is good news at the Democratic National Committee. Howard Dean is providing state-of-the-art tools in key races. He's hired engineers who literally mapped the human genome to construct a backbone for the DNC's voter database. Total fundraising has grown despite an unprecedented effort to shift resources away from the DNC to the DCCC and DSCC. Dean's done good.

But he may be doomed.

Why? Because his factional rivals inside the Party have framed the debate about who is paving the road to victory. This Washington Post article draws lines in wet concrete--and the concrete is drying into a false narrative.