In less than a week, Donald Trump will give his first official State Of The Union address to a joint gathering of Congress. His address to Congress last year wasn't an official State Of The Union, but it showed how Democrats were still unsure about how to react to him being president once again. I am reminded of the old Will Rogers quip: "I am not a member of any organized political party -- I am a Democrat," in fact. Democrats had no cohesive way of showing their disapproval of Trump, so instead they tried the "throw the spaghetti at the wall" strategy of having everyone do whatever they felt like doing. Some Democrats had little paddle-like signs they held up (with multiple different disapproving messages, showing a lack of cohesion), some Democrats refused to attend, some Democrats got up and walked out during the speech, and one stood up and started screaming back at Trump. The whole thing was a disorganized mess, message-discipline-wise. Democrats looked unorganized and weak.

This year they're not quite as disorganized, and they now have the benefit of Trump's approval ratings sinking below 40 percent once again, but they're still not going to present a totally unified front, it seems. Having said that, however, it does look like they've at least gotten one new idea that is better than last year's mishmash:

[Democrats are] trying something different on Tuesday, when Mr. Trump is scheduled to deliver the first State of the Union address of his second term. A substantial number of Democrats are planning to boycott the speech and attend an alternative event, a rally called the "People's State of the Union," which will take place on the National Mall near the Capitol.

The event, which is being coordinated by the left-wing advocacy group MoveOn and MeidasTouch, a progressive media company, will feature Democratic lawmakers speaking with people who have been negatively affected by Mr. Trump's economic and health care policies, as well as federal workers who lost their jobs and immigrants who have been targeted by the Trump administration. It will be hosted by the liberal political commentators Joy Reid and Katie Phang.

Sounds like a good idea, at least in the abstract. Trump hates being shown up in any way on television, so such counterprogramming could get under his skin. It's doubtful that the television networks will provide a split-screen view of both events, but there will doubtlessly be views of both featured in the coverage afterwards. And highlighting how Trump's policies have negatively affected many different types of Americans is a good basic strategy, because it will show how much of Trump's "everything is not just wonderful, it is more wonderful than it ever has been" blatant lying and gaslighting is simply not the case for millions.

Several prominent Democrats have already announced they'll be going to the rally rather than sitting and watching Trump's speech. So far, here is the current list of who won't be showing up:

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Reps. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) are expected to join the rally, organizers said Wednesday.

This list is doubtlessly going to grow larger, as we get closer to the speech. Some are already going on record with their reasons why they won't be attending:

"[Donald Trump has] made a mockery of the State of the Union speech and he doesn't deserve an audience," Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said of Mr. Trump in an interview, explaining why he planned to attend the rally instead of the speech. "He's going to tell 40 different lies, call Democrats names; he's going to paper over his corruption; and I don't feel like what he's doing dignifies having Democrats there to cloak the speech in a veneer of respectability."

Mr. Murphy, who also skipped the address last year, added: "These aren't normal times, and we have to stop doing normal things."

. . .

"We cannot normalize this moment when Trump is marching our country toward fascism," said [Senator Chris] Van Hollen, who will also speak at the rally. "I refuse to be a prop in the chamber as Donald Trump shreds our Constitution and attacks our democracy."

Democrats being Democrats, however, there's a slightly different idea also under consideration: "Another contingent of lawmakers is expected to walk out of the address while Mr. Trump is speaking and make their way to the competing event."

I almost wrote about this subject yesterday, before I had heard of the planned rally. The death of Reverend Jesse Jackson made me postpone writing about the idea, though. If I were advising Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer as to the best way Democrats could respond to Trump's lies, I would tell them to appoint one Democrat as the point person for the whole party, sit them way down front, and give them a loose list of possible things Trump might talk about which would be so offensive that it would require a forceful response. Then whenever that point person determined the offensiveness had reached the boiling point, they would pointedly stand up, head for the aisle, turn their back on Trump and march silently out.

Beforehand, Democrats in Congress would be asked whether they'd be willing to join such a protest, and the ones who were willing to do so should be seated close to the aisle. As the point person passed their row, they would all also stand up and file into the aisle to follow the point person out. In a very orderly fashion, row after row of Democrats would stand up and walk out, making the protest impossible for Trump (or the television networks) to ignore. If enough Democrats joined in such a protest -- say, at least half of them -- it would leave a whole lot of empty seats for Trump to face for the rest of his speech.

Of course I do realize that this may have required a degree of coordination that might be beyond Democrats, but it sure would be worth a try. In fact, I would still urge any Democrat considering walking out of Trump's speech to do so in a big group rather than one at a time. If it happens singly, person by person, then it wouldn't have anywhere near the impact, either politically or visually. But if enough Democrats all stood up and walked out together it would be a powerful statement.

There's one logistical problem that might defuse the rally that's worth mentioning as well. If the rally (as seems to be indicated) will take place concurrently with Trump's speech, it will mean trying to raise and hold a crowd on the National Mall -- outside -- in February. At night. That might either be so bone-chilling cold that not much of a crowd shows up (or stays, once the sun goes down), or it might even wind up happening in the middle of a snowstorm (who knows what the weather will be like in D.C. next Tuesday night?). That could put a real damper on the enthusiasm and impact of the event.

If the event is not too arctic in nature and not being held in the midst of a blizzard, there is one final way it could truly make the biggest impact possible. I have not yet heard who the Democrats have decided will give the response speech to the State Of The Union, but whomever gets the job should give that speech at the rally. This would absolutely force the television networks to cover at least that part of it. This might have to be a last-minute decision, based on the weather forecast for that day, because since the response speech will be given after the president finishes (and we all know how much Trump likes to hear himself talk), it would of necessity mean it would be the final speech at the rally -- very late in the evening, in other words. If the crowd had dwindled to a handful by that point, it would tend to make the entire protest effort a rather wet firecracker. But if the weather isn't too brutal and a big crowd of people stuck it out to the end (knowing they'd be on television for the final speech), then it could work in a big way.

The whole rally idea is a gamble. It's a new idea, so nobody really knows how it will all turn out. At best, it could wind up being more powerful than even Trump's big speech. At worst, it could wind up being a small crowd huddled around a stage, freezing their butts off (with or without the addition of freezing rain, sleet, or snow falling on their heads).

But it's certainly worth a try. It's a much better idea than what we saw from the Democrats last year. Countering Trump's lies is always a daunting task (because he utters so many of them) but rallying together and sharing the stories of people hurt by Trump's policies interspersed with politicians speaking could work out pretty well, as a counterweight to the flurry of lies from within the Capitol. Donald Trump is not very popular right now, but then again neither is the Democratic Party. Democrats presenting a unified resistance and a chance for people to show their displeasure at a rally could help change for the better the way the party is seen by the voters. Like I said, it's certainly worth taking the chance (and hoping the weather cooperates). At the very least, it is without doubt a better idea than waving little paddles at Trump while he speaks, that's for sure.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant