,
15 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Honest question @mattyglesias - did you talk to anyone in "resistance" groups for this? Some of this just doesn't ring true...and I would know bc I spend my time traveling the country and meeting with these folks. I'll raise a few flags in a thread here. vox.com/2019/3/19/1826…
A week after the election, Indivisible released its "Indivisible on Offense" guide. The Google Doc crash bc of interest - same thing that happened 2 years earlier with the original guide. The number one response we got from our groups after the election was: "Great, what's next?"
Days after the election, when Sessions was fired, hundreds events sprang up around the country in defense of the rule of law. I know bc I spoke to a massive crowd outside the White House. newyorker.com/news/news-desk…
It wasn't just at the White House - check out this seemingly endless thread on mobilizations on this days after the election.
Then, January 3rd was the first day of Congress. Indivisible had its literal largest single day of action in the history of our existence in support of the Dem's democracy bill. The press coverage was overwhelming. Here's a taste: twitter.com/i/moments/1080…
Then the shutdown and Trump's fake emergency declaration happened. Scroll through this for a sense of what our groups were doing all over the country in response. twitter.com/search?q=Indiv…
The line in your piece that seems particular off is this below - it points to a fundamentally misunderstanding of what the post-Trump grassroots energy is. Congressional leaders *can't* demobilize it, because they don't control it - they're the target of it. 
It's laughable to think Pelosi or Schumer or any other member of congress could tell the local groups to demobilize. E.g. the New York groups are still - post-election! - protesting Schumer and asking him to hold a public town hall.
Funny enough - I write this thread hastily on a flight back from Colorado, where I was meeting with Indivisible groups from all over that state. They are focused on taking full advantage of the state's new Dem trifecta, and ramping up to replace Gardner with a Dem in 2020.
Last week I was in Texas - met with Grapevine Indivisible and others around the state. Week before that I was in California - met with 100+ leaders from separate Indivisible groups. Before that I was in Indiana, at a statewide Indivisible convening an hour north of Indianapolis.
All that said, 100% agree with you that demobilization of the resistance would be a bad thing. And this line is spot on. There's a virtuous cycle between advocacy and electoral work. The same groups that organized to kill TrumpCare in 2017 went on to build the blue wave in 2018.
If we're going to build another blue wave in 2020, we'll probably fail if we wait til 2020 to do it. The advocacy work we do in 2019 is important on it's own, but it's also important as a down payment for a successful 2020. Build capacity & strength now, and it'll pay off later.
So the disagreement here is 1) Whether demobilization is happening; and 2) Whether congressional leaders have done or even could do that. My answer would be a pretty simple "no" to both. And I think your framing here would be a surprise to folks on the ground doing this work.
Happy to talk about what we're seeing on the ground, and the the inside-outside game that's evolved since the blue wave hit Washington. Should loop in @Leahgreenb too. We're all in DC (when not traveling) - so let's talk. /end
(funny - @Leahgreenb tells me she did talk to you ahead of this piece. Let's talk more!)
