Post
Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
"Progressives" were quite happy when Bernie appeared on Rogan. Centrists were not. This smacks of CYA
The election did not hinge upon Joe Rogan's podcast.
Can we take a deep breath here?
Agreed. But one interview wouldn’t have swayed this election. The Dems do need a more assertive media engagement strategy, but it’s got to start now for 2028. Not the week before the next election.
Chris...surely the incessant and fearless appearances with Liz Cheney give you some idea if this is what happened...
Chris...as i was saying...
Quote
Jennifer Palmieri
@jmpalmieri
I messed this up…important background should have included here. As campaign said in real time, VP didn’t appear on Rogan because of schedule (hard to get to TX twice in a 107 day campaign). 1/2 x.com/annaknicolaou/…
If you believe this for a moment, you should stop covering politics.
Quote
Zaigham A Kazmi
@kzaigha
Replying to @HeerJeet
We all know this is BS.
She could not sympathize with Palestinians that prog demanded
She campaigned with Cheney that prog hated
But this because of prog!
It is just an attempt to blame prog for her loss.
Show more
No it's not. Rogan demanded she come to Texas in the final days of the campaign, and that she had to do a full 3 hours.
That's not happening.
This is a waste of time, Chris and another reason why you’ve lost 50% of your viewers.
It’s typical for Democrats after a loss, to blame progressives. I remember in 2020 when Democrats lost seats in the House, & moderates like Abigail Spanberger blamed the progressives & some political commentators ( not u, some on Morning Joe ) . washingtonpost.com/politics/house
She wouldn’t have garnered a single vote by going on that podcast. This is dumb.
This is much ado about nothing. She did NOT lose the election because she didn’t interview with Rogan. Can you guys please stop the madness?!
I still think the bigger reason is that they didn’t want to let Kamala Harris loose for 3 hours in such an unpredictable way like that.
The campaign, to its credit and detriment, was too disciplined, guarded, and cautious to do something like Rogan
We needed to keep calling Trump a coward for not debating her a second time, until he did.
Trump supporters are so blind sighted, they won’t see anything w/o Trump in it.
Harris spent the 1st debate taking Trump down. In a 2nd, she needed to talk to and persuade his base.
C'mon, people! Not one man would change his mind! What are we kidding about? 
Seems like a way to pass blame. The Harris staff ignored any progressive staff they had the whole campaign, why listen to “some” of them now?
Maybe ignoring the Epstein and Khashoggi stories that would’ve likely horrified the American people had more to do with how they ended up voting. Rogan might’ve even supported Harris, interview or no interview.
I mean, after the Trump interview Rogan expressed regret about not confronting him more on the Polio vaccine. I feel like a Harris interview would not have been helpful in any real way.
The smart reason for making that particular decision is that she would have appeared even more unprepared and incompetent than usual.
Beyond stupid. Stupid read of the room like saying I hear you, we see you to pro Hamas protestor’s screaming she is a genocider at her.
Occam's Razor
OF COURSE this was the reason, because stupid stuff like this was ALWAYS the reason for the Harris campaign
Chris, you're a smart man, you know good and damn well Joe Rogan was going to endorse Trump. Period.
Who cares??? It wouldn’t have mattered one goddamn bit. People had made up their minds already.
No back and forth over anything on that show was gonna change millions of minds to vote for her. Not in the voting blocs she needed to win over at least.
Very stupid, to be sure, but after many of these same party hacks denounced Bernie Sanders for going on Rogan, I can understand why they might not welcome the contradictions.