Sounds great, huh? Take some ideas that the Tea Party used to fight Obama, do a little intellectual judo, and use this new set to fight Trump?
Erm, not so fast, Cochise, or rather, not so fast Jeremy Haile and compadres. There's a bit more, and a bit less, to the situation than what you claim. Haile worked for Lloyd Doggett, so he KNOWS some of the things that I'm going to list below are true. Levin also worked for Doggett and I suspect that Angel Padilla has similar Texas connections. In other words, per items they list, and my responses below, they know better.
First, they don't tell you that Preznit Kumbaya, by continuing to sing from the Kumbaya playbook, helped shoot some of his own plans in his own foot.
Second, they don't tell you that Preznit Kumbaya was and is a neoliberal who, initial statements aside, hated people trying to "push him" from the left.
Third, they don't tell you that, even though a fair amount of the Tea Party movement did start at the grassroots, much of it became corporately co-opted by people like Dick "Dick" Armey.
There's more here, part of it as noted in a screengrab of I sent Haile.
And, that part about Eddie Bernice and Jelly is true, true, true. Sorry, folks.
Shit, in my current district, where I've not been for too, too, long, but way too long, my Congresscritter hasn't even had a staff member visit. Nor has he announced a visit of even a staff member to my town, or the nearest town of over 25K, in local media.
As for grassroots advocacy stopping Obama? Nooo, he helped with that himself, not to mention the moneybags co-opting of most Tea Party groups.
Dear Leader undersold and underfunded his stimulus plan, and part of its projects weren't shovel-ready. TARP et al were used to insure banksters got money even on defaulted mortgages that were shite in the first place. The "quick rinse" bankruptcy for Ford and GM pissed off others. And, failure to put banksters through any sort of nationalization, or close to that pissed off yet more people from Dear Leader's left — the types of people he said he wanted to "push" him, then bitched when they did.
And, Larry, Moe and Curly above know that, too.
As for Tea Partiers pushing their own members in the GOP? Well, that's true.
When was the last time you saw a left-liberal Dem primary a Rahm Emanuel Blue Dog, though? Larry, Moe and Curly know that, too.
Claiming, in essence, for Congresscritters that there is no such thing as a "safe district" is even more laughable.
Besides, the authors undercut themselves by admitting that Congresscritters don't care about deep-thinking voters:
MoC Cares a Lot About
MoC Doesn’t Care Much About
Verified constituents from the District
(or state for Senators)
People from outside the district
(or state for Senators)
Advocacy that requires effort - the more effort, the more they care. Calls, personal emails, and especially showing up in person in the district
Form letters, a Tweet, or Facebook comment (unless they generate widespread attention)
Local press and editorials, maybe national press
Wonky D.C.-based news (depends on MoC)
An interest group’s endorsement
Your thoughtful analysis of the proposed bill
Groups of constituents, locally famous individuals, or big individual campaign contributors
A single constituent
A concrete ask that entails a verifiable action - vote for a bill, make a public statement, etc
General ideas about the world
One single ask in your communication (letter, email, phone call, office visit, etc)
A laundry list of all the issues you’re concerned about.
Note No. 4 on the right-hand list. This would apply to groups as well as individuals.
(This also ignores using a "cutout" address within a Representative's district, or Senator's state, to get around the verification issue at the top of the left-hand side of the list. For former Congresscritter staffers, we don't have the brightest people in the book. That said, the whole piece looks like it's written at Citizen Engagement 101 level, if not remedial level.)
More naivete follows in the next chart:
Letter to Constituent
Constituent feels happy that their concerns were answered.
Constituent posts letter on social media saying it didn’t answer their questions or didn’t answer for weeks/months, calls Congresswoman Bob unresponsive and untrustworthy.
Local Newspaper Reports that Congresswoman Sara appeared at opening of new bridge, which she helped secure funding for.
Local newspaper reports that protestors barraged Congresswoman Sara with questions about corruption in the infrastructure bill.
Town Hall / Listening Session
Local newspaper reports that Congessman Bob hosted a town hall and discussed his work to balance the budget.
Local newspaper reports that angry constituents strongly objected to Congressman Bob’s support for privatizing Medicare.
Congresswoman Sara votes on a bill and releases a press statement hailing it as a step forward.
Congresswoman Sara’s phones are deluged with calls objecting to the bill. A group of constituents stage an event outside her district office and invite press to hear them talk about how the bill will personally hurt their families.
Erm, on social media? Post an unanswered issue on a Congresscritter's Facebook page if he/she is in a safe district, and you'll get your ass flamed. They also either do know that or should know that.
Per my above comments, unless it's a BIG issue, the Congresscritter doesn't show up for groundbreakings. Staff does. And, your comments to mainstream media have a fair (not fantastic, necessarily, but fair) chance of landing in File 13/cutting room floor.
Finally, although not explicitly stated, all the above is framed pretty much within the two-party duopoly, and that is itself a problem with this. That's part of how I was able to easily smell a fair chunk of the bullshit in all of this.
Double-finally, the whole "best practices" claim is Net 2.0-enough to add a small additional touch of barf inducement.
Triple-finally, they're essentially saying "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" actually happened, and can happen again today.
As for Trump being the biggest popular vote loser to be elected president? (That's claimed not only here, but elsewhere.)
Technically true, but only if one goes by absolute numbers.
John Quincy Adams in 1824 (10.5 percentage points) and Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 (3 percentage points) both had bigger gaps than Trump's 2 percentage points.
Substituting flim-flam for actual history gets you a ding in my book.
Beyond that, over at Popehat, Ken White has some good ideas for fighting fake news, the meme of "fake news" and other things that probably apply here.