For example, Caroline Kennedy as Hillary’s replacement. Some people who are anti-Kennedy because the Kennedys opposed Hillary did their thing against CK. Some who wanted a woman chosen did their thing for Maloney and Gillibrand. Some who wanted media reform challenged the media bias for CK. Some who saw corruption in the IL appointments agitated for a special election instead of an appointment. Some LGBT supporters promoted Randy whatshername.
It all worked together. Almost every Puma did some kind of dig at CK and the media while they were pushing their own pet issue. And it worked!
Another project might be a recount situation. The focus might be election reform, but some Pumas would be drawn in by sympathy for a particular candidate, or wishing to deny the Dems their veto-proof majority, or caring about some pet issue of one of the candidates. Some might be debunking media inaccuracy. Whatever they are pushing, each statement would probably include some dig at the recount procedure problem. It wouldn’t even matter whether all Pumas supported the same candidate! They would still all be digging at the recount procedure.
Currently we might focus on media treatment of the Tea Parties. Some people would re-cap media treatment of Hillary and Sarah, debunking some of those slanders. Some might find a woman journalist to praise — perhaps Greta or Lynn Sweet. Some might show evidence that the protests against May 31 were bigger than reported, and explain the DNC election procedure issues that caused those protests.
Once we’ve narrowed down to say 5 issues, then it doesn’t matter which issue is the nominal focus on each particular project. We can choose projects by how much interest there is in them already in the general public (eg with CK there was a lot of interest). And by how achievable each particular small project is!
[ trying to post this at RD in "Puma planning", it's in moderation ]