There’s an interesting idea floating around on social media about how to rescue the Democrats from a wilderness of mixed messages and relentless media stories of Democratic disarray. But actually bringing this idea about sheds light on the thorny structural challenges that the opposition party faces.

The idea is that "the Democrats" should designate a single spokesperson, or perhaps rotating spokespeople, to give a daily press conference with a few clear talking points. That would presumably become the day’s main political story and give Democratic opposition to Trump more focus and clarity. So far, so good.

A number of the social media accounts have suggested Pete Buttigieg, who is deft at articulating a substantively progressive message as just plain common sense. Trump’s wrecking crew provides a target-rich environment, to say the least.

But let’s play out making this idea happen. For starters, who are "the Democrats"? Who would appoint this spokesperson or -people, and using what criteria?

There is a Democratic National Committee, with a talented new chair in Ken Martin, but the DNC does not make this kind of decision. The Senate and House leaders, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, are the closest thing to national leaders.

Let’s assume that Martin, Schumer, and Jeffries meet and decide that this is a good idea. Then begins the problem of herding cats.

Schumer and Jeffries would have to get buy-in from their respective caucuses. Multiple demands would surface. Lots of different people with presidential aspirations would want the role of daily spokesperson. All would agree on just one thing. It can’t be just Pete Buttigieg.

Then the further mixed blessing of diversity in all its forms would kick in. There would be pressure to pick spokespeople from different regions, races, genders, ideologies. Instead of clarity, we’d get a circus.

Let’s make the heroic assumption that the party leadership could somehow surmount this challenge and pick just three rotating spokespeople.

My nominees would be Jamie Raskin, Gretchen Whitmer, and Pete Buttigieg. See the superb extended interview with Raskin in Politico. He is the most eloquent and best-focused anti-Trump Democrat we have. But I digress.

There is the further challenge of message. Do we just leave that up to the messengers, or must they clear it with some kind of committee?

The anti-Trump talking points are clear enough. He is putting your health at risk with fringe appointees and wreckage of essential public-health agencies. He plans to take away some of your health insurance and Social Security to finance more tax cuts for his billionaire cronies. He is wrecking the economy and inviting a stock market crash. He is destroying America’s most reliable alliances and helping global adversaries.

I wish that his trampling of the rule of law, his vindictiveness, and his cruel separation of immigrant families with Gestapo-style ICE raids were at the top of the list. They surely are for Prospect readers. But for the general public, alas, the more powerful message is how Trump’s crazy actions harm you.

A further challenge is the Democrats’ affirmative program. Yes, we need a few bold commitments that would help ordinary people directly and provide a vivid contrast with Trump. Our friend Tom Geoghegan, writing in The Nation and urging Democrats to keep it big and simple, proposes a 50 percent increase in Social Security benefits and a law prohibiting the firing of wage and salary workers except for cause. At the top of my list would be canceling student debt.

But here’s the problem with that tactic. The press would quickly point out that none of this stands any chance of passage, and many elected Democrats would distance themselves from Hail Mary pass proposals.

If the Democratic leadership could agree on a small rotating cast to provide a consistent narrative on the personal menace of Trump to ordinary Americans, that would be a possible start.