Bernie Sanders Criticizes Democrats for Avoiding Joe Rogan’s Platform

[Social Media]

 

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has openly criticized Democrats for their reluctance to engage with Joe Rogan and other prominent podcast hosts, arguing that this hesitation is a missed opportunity to reach large and diverse audiences. Sanders shared his views during an interview on CNN’s *State of the Union*, responding to host Dana Bash’s questions about the backlash he faced after appearing on Rogan’s show and receiving Rogan’s endorsement in the 2020 primary race.

 

Reflecting on the controversy, Sanders defended his decision to engage with Rogan, saying, “Yeah, I think that’s fair enough. Look, you’re going to have an argument with Rogan, agree with him, disagree with him. But, what’s the problem with going on those shows? It’s hard for me to understand that.” Sanders pointed out that Rogan’s platform reaches “millions and millions of viewers” and emphasized the importance of candidates connecting with a wide range of media audiences.

 

Rogan recently endorsed former President Donald Trump shortly before Election Day, following a lengthy interview with Trump on his podcast. The interview, which spanned nearly three hours, covered a range of topics. Trump’s ally and tech mogul Elon Musk also made an appearance on Rogan’s show just ahead of the election, strengthening ties with Rogan’s audience, which skews younger and male.

 

Vice President Kamala Harris, in contrast, opted not to travel to Rogan’s Texas-based studio for an interview, though her campaign did not explicitly decline the opportunity. Instead, Harris’s team suggested that Rogan would need to come to her, offering only an hour-long slot for the interview. The meeting ultimately fell through, with some Democrats later criticizing the decision, suggesting that Harris missed a valuable opportunity to connect with Rogan’s extensive audience.

 

In the aftermath of a disappointing election, Democrats have engaged in intense self-reflection, trying to understand what went wrong. Some party members argue that Harris’s decision to skip the Rogan interview was emblematic of a broader disconnect with younger, independent voters, particularly young men who make up a significant portion of Rogan’s listeners.

 

Sanders has remained vocal about the need for Democrats to engage with alternative media outlets. In January 2020, Rogan had expressed his support for Sanders in the Democratic primary, a gesture that sparked backlash from some members of the Democratic establishment who were wary of Rogan’s sometimes controversial commentary. Despite the criticism, Sanders maintains that his decision to engage with Rogan was a sensible one, saying on Sunday, “I don’t see a problem in doing that.”

 

Based on a report by the Hill 2024-11-13

 

 

 

[Cryingdick]

If you have a candidate you need to hide you are doing it wrong. Most candidates try to do the most they can to showcase themselves. Biden skipping the superbowl was a big red flag as well. Any candidate worth their salt wants all the publicity they can get. 

[jimmybcool]

23 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

If you have a candidate you need to hide you are doing it wrong. Most candidates try to do the most they can to showcase themselves. Biden skipping the superbowl was a big red flag as well. Any candidate worth their salt wants all the publicity they can get. 

 

The position they took was Rogan has a right leaning audience.  Maybe true.  But they should still do it.  Trump was interviewed on multiple sites by friend and foe.  When he appeared in enemy territory people watching might have been surprised to discover he wasn't a crazy as the left paints him.  Kamala had a chance to prove she isn't as stupid as the right painted her by doing a sit down interview where teleprompters and word salad wouldn't cut it.  She could state her case in detail and show her human side.  She passed.  Perhaps she isn't smart and that would have been exposed.  We'll never know.  But I agree she needed more exposure not less.  The left succeeded electing Biden by hiding him and I guess thought they could do it with Kamala. 

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

 

The position they took was Rogan has a right leaning audience.  Maybe true.  But they should still do it.  Trump was interviewed on multiple sites by friend and foe.  When he appeared in enemy territory people watching might have been surprised to discover he wasn't a crazy as the left paints him.  Kamala had a chance to prove she isn't as stupid as the right painted her by doing a sit down interview where teleprompters and word salad wouldn't cut it.  She could state her case in detail and show her human side.  She passed.  Perhaps she isn't smart and that would have been exposed.  We'll never know.  But I agree she needed more exposure not less.  The left succeeded electing Biden by hiding him and I guess thought they could do it with Kamala. 

 

Hopefully this wizard of oz approach to campaigns is dead forever. The public deserve to know who is running. If you want to enter the political brothel you have to show your dick.

[malibukid]

they kept her under wraps since they knew she was damaged goods with nothing new to say.  they where betting that the American people would give her a pass. i voted Green. so blame the party. the Dems needed a good spanking since they are now owned by the corporate elites.

[pattayasan]

1 minute ago, malibukid said:

they kept her under wraps since they knew she was damaged goods with nothing new to say.  they where betting that the American people would give her a pass. i voted Green. so blame the party. the Dems needed a good spanking since they are now owned by the corporate elites.

 

The rise and rise of MAGA has been propelled by the Citizens United decision which allowed unlimited amounts of anonymous money from the corporate elites to run proxy campaigns.

[pattayasan]

1 hour ago, jimmybcool said:

 

The position they took was Rogan has a right leaning audience.  Maybe true.  But they should still do it.  Trump was interviewed on multiple sites by friend and foe.  When he appeared in enemy territory people watching might have been surprised to discover he wasn't a crazy as the left paints him.  Kamala had a chance to prove she isn't as stupid as the right painted her by doing a sit down interview where teleprompters and word salad wouldn't cut it.  She could state her case in detail and show her human side.  She passed.  Perhaps she isn't smart and that would have been exposed.  We'll never know.  But I agree she needed more exposure not less.  The left succeeded electing Biden by hiding him and I guess thought they could do it with Kamala. 

 

Complete rubbish. Trump avoided debates and refused to be interviewed on many occasions.

 

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/18/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/trump-skips-another-interview-00184327

[Cryingdick]

10 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

Complete rubbish. Trump avoided debates and refused to be interviewed on many occasions.

 

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/18/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/trump-skips-another-interview-00184327

 

If that's the case it worked well for him. For a long time dems were saying Kamala was smart to hide should have kept it that way. 

[pattayasan]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

If that's the case it worked well for him. For a long time dems were saying Kamala was smart to hide should have kept it that way. 

 

She obviously assumed it worked for her. Rogan is not mainstream MSM, he's an extremist.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, pattayasan said:

 

She obviously assumed it worked for her. Rogan is not mainstream MSM, he's an extremist.

 

Rogan had a forum a few years back. He killed it because it would have become a  liability. Anyway he was very laid back and had a few rules he enforced about u no it being racist or overly offensive. He would participate now and then and he isn't an extremist in the least. He is basically a stoner that likes manly stuff. Says a lot of weird things but don't we all? 

 

 

[pattayasan]

6 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Rogan had a forum a few years back. He killed it because it would have become a  liability. Anyway he was very laid back and had a few rules he enforced about u no it being racist or overly offensive. He would participate now and then and he isn't an extremist in the least. He is basically a stoner that likes manly stuff. Says a lot of weird things but don't we all?

 

He has form and that's precisely why she gave him a swerve.

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

He has form and that's precisely why she gave him a swerve.

 

He wouldn't have been out to get her. He has some very liberal ideas as well. He will interview anybody and let them tell their side of the story. 

 

Kamala wanted to do his show but on her terms so he gave her a swerve. Everybody is treated the same.

Edited Tuesday at 11:24 PM by Cryingdick

[dinsdale]

2 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

He has form and that's precisely why she gave him a swerve.

She didn't do it because it wasn't a softball interview. She would actually have to answer questions she would be challenged on and saying she was brought up in a middle class family would cut the mustard.

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

She didn't do it because it wasn't a softball interview. She would actually have to answer questions she would be challenged on and saying she was brought up in a middle class family would cut the mustard.

 

It isn't even really an interview so much as a conversation. Rogan isn't a journalist. He doesn't try to box you in, his approach is to bring you out.  In Kamala's case that's a problem if you are vacant. 

Edited Tuesday at 11:28 PM by Cryingdick

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

Vice President Kamala Harris, in contrast, opted not to travel to Rogan’s Texas-based studio for an interview, though her campaign did not explicitly decline the opportunity. Instead, Harris’s team suggested that Rogan would need to come to her, offering only an hour-long slot for the interview.

 

Joe Rogan does relaxed interviews for hours. Preferable with alcohol or other drugs to loosen up his guests to show who they really are. And he is open to listen to (it seems) anything. Let people talk. When some people talk it sounds very interesting. When others talk they are full of <deleted>. Joe Rogen gives them a chance to show themselves.

And obviously many people, and many of his guests, are a little bit like this and like that, they are humans.

A fixed interview in TV studio somewhere in Washington is not his style - for a good reason.

Lex Fridman has a similar but also different style. Also, hours long.

Both have often interesting guests.

 

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

Joe Rogan does relaxed interviews for hours. Preferable with alcohol or other drugs to loosen up his guests to show who they really are. And he is open to listen to (it seems) anything. Let people talk. When some people talk it sounds very interesting. When others talk they are full of <deleted>. Joe Rogen gives them a chance to show themselves.

And obviously many people, and many of his guests, are a little bit like this and like that, they are humans.

A fixed interview in TV studio somewhere in Washington is not his style - for a good reason.

Lex Fridman has a similar but also different style. Also, hours long.

Both have often interesting guests.

 

 

Yes this is it exactly.

[pattayasan]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

Joe Rogan does relaxed interviews for hours. Preferable with alcohol or other drugs to loosen up his guests to show who they really are. And he is open to listen to (it seems) anything. Let people talk. When some people talk it sounds very interesting. When others talk they are full of <deleted>. Joe Rogen gives them a chance to show themselves.

And obviously many people, and many of his guests, are a little bit like this and like that, they are humans.

A fixed interview in TV studio somewhere in Washington is not his style - for a good reason.

Lex Fridman has a similar but also different style. Also, hours long.

Both have often interesting guests.

 

 

Preferable with alcohol or other drugs to loosen up his guests

 

If you're looking for reasons she gave him a swerve , start right there.

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

Preferable with alcohol or other drugs to loosen up his guests

 

If you're looking for reasons she gave him a swerve , start right there.

 

It was her loss obvilusly.

[dinsdale]

1 minute ago, pattayasan said:

 

Preferable with alcohol or other drugs to loosen up his guests

 

If you're looking for reasons she gave him a swerve , start right there.

Then why didn't she articulate this as a reason. Oh wait! I forgot. She can't articulate anything. Only gave rehearsed answers. People saw straight through her as being a fraud and voted accordingly.

[pattayasan]

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Then why didn't she articulate this as a reason. Oh wait! I forgot. She can't articulate anything. Only gave rehearsed answers. People saw straight through her as being a fraud and voted accordingly.

 

There's that vitriol you were complaining about.

[dinsdale]

2 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

There's that vitriol you were complaining about.

Saying she is inarticulate is not vitriol. It's an observation that was on show for all to see.

 

[pattayasan]

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Saying she is inarticulate is not vitriol. It's an observation that was on show for all to see.

 

Pretty sure you used the word "fraud" and know you did.

[dinsdale]

3 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

Pretty sure you used the word "fraud" and know you did.

Saying someone is being a fraud is not vitriol when it is clear for all to see. She came across as an empty vessel simply sprouting rehearsed lines. She was a DEI appointment. The Dem elites thought being a women of colour was all that was needed to defeat Trump. Didn't work. 

[pattayasan]

Just now, dinsdale said:

Saying someone is being a fraud is not vitriol when it is clear for all to see. She came across as an empty vessel simply sprouting rehearsed lines. She was a DEI appointment. The Dem elites thought being a women of colour was all that was needed to defeat Trump. Didn't work. 

 

DEI? Yet more vitriol.

[dinsdale]

1 minute ago, pattayasan said:

 

DEI? Yet more vitriol.

I'm starting to think you don't know what vitriol means. She was not elected through any primary. She was chosen. 

[pattayasan]

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

I'm starting to think you don't know what vitriol means. She was not elected through any primary. She was chosen. 

 

Vance? Hypocrite much?

 

The billionaire who fueled JD Vance's rapid rise to the Trump VP spot

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jd-vance-trump-vp-peter-thiel-billionaire/

[dinsdale]

6 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

Vance? Hypocrite much?

 

The billionaire who fueled JD Vance's rapid rise to the Trump VP spot

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jd-vance-trump-vp-peter-thiel-billionaire/

Not a DEI appointment. No DEI appointments under Trump. It's merit based. Vance won the Ohio GOP primary after Trumps endorsement and was selected by Trump to be his running mate after the PA assassination attempt. Seems like he was a good pick.

[pattayasan]

Just now, dinsdale said:

Not a DEI appointment. No DEI appointments under Trump. It's merit based. Vance won the Ohio GOP primary after Trumps endorsement and was selected by Trump to be his running mate after the PA assassination attempt. Seems like he was a good pick.

 

Vance was merit based despite being backed by billionaire cash yet Harris was a DEI based entirely on her ethnicity. Your racism is showing.

[dinsdale]

Just now, pattayasan said:

 

Vance was merit based despite being backed by billionaire cash yet Harris was a DEI based entirely on her ethnicity. Your racism is showing.

You must be kidding. Waltz is a white male and I think he was equally as useless. Sex and race has absolutely nothing to do with my criticisms of Harris. It was her performance and complete lack of articulating policy or even answering simple direct question.  

[JonnyF]

They were right to avoid it.

 

Harris and Walz were awful candidates. Vacuous. Disingenous. The last thing they wanted was a frank, open, 3 hour conversation with a neutral interviewer to expose this any further.

 

They lost the day they avoided the Democratic process to appoint Harris as nominee. Karma. Now hurry up and get out of the white house. You've overstayed your welcome. And take that white powder with you.