Election 2020

As Progressive Twitter Erupts at Joe Rogan Endorsing Bernie Sanders, a Reminder: Elizabeth Warren's Sexism Gambit Backfired

Sanders' lead over Warren has doubled since her campaign tried using a private 2018 conversation against him.

|

One of the top trending topics on Twitter this morning is the hugely popular podcaster Joe Rogan. Why? Here's the outspoken progressive commentator Carlos Maza:

Maza was referencing this Thursday tweet from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.):

Cue the outrage-headlines: "Bernie Sanders' Use of Joe Rogan Endorsement Sparks Debate: 'The Campaign Didn't Need to Amplify It'" and "Joe Rogan Triggers Internet Outrage Because He Endorsed Bernie Sanders."

It's an odd if predictable way for politically engaged progressives to greet the news that a socialist has been endorsed by one of the most popular podcasters in history. Maza, you may recall, successfully browbeated YouTube to demonetize the account of conservative shock-jock Steven Crowder last June after Crowder had repeatedly mocked Maza as a "lispy queer." Maza is from that part of the social media left that prioritizes deplatforming various influential people who have various unacceptable views.

So what are Rogan's? That the comedian and Mixed Martial Arts broadcaster finds it "preposterous" for male-born athletes to compete against women after transitioning. That he lamented the cancellation of The Dukes of Hazzard, using rather salty language. That he has interviewed such even-less-acceptable people as Milo Yiannopoulos and Jordan Petersen. (Rogan's M.O. is to do insanely long interviews with various newsmakers, including, perhaps most spectacularly, a stoned Elon Musk.)

This latest skirmish in the left's ongoing identity-politics war comes against a backdrop of powerful female politicians and their supporters coming after Bernie Sanders and his for their alleged misogyny. First it was Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) asserting on January 13 that Sanders told her in a private December 2018 conversation that he did not believe a woman could win the presidency. After Sanders denied the claim in a subsequent Democratic presidential debate (in which moderators from CNN, which had broken the original story, treated Warren's side of the story as settled fact), Warren famously refused to shake Bernie's hand.

A few days later, 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray, claiming that Sanders has a "pattern" of saying misogynistic things and supporting a culture of anti-women behavior within his campaign.

When the Warren news first hit, I argued that she was making the "exact same tactical mistake" as five presidential candidates who had already flamed out of the race: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.), Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), Julián Castro, and Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.). Namely, they banked on identity politics as an electoral winner.

While those five were also trying to downplay their past centrist heresies—a problem Warren doesn't exactly have, even if Sanders surrogates like to paint her as a closet neoliberal—the Massachusetts senator nevertheless appears to have calculated that reviving the feminist critique of "Bernie Bros" and stressing the extra obstacles female candidates have to overcome was a sound strategy to regain the lead she enjoyed throughout the fall over the other progressive stalwart in the race. So how did that go?

So far, not so well. On January 12, the day before the private meeting became public, FiveThirtyEight's rolling adjusted national polling average had Sanders at 18.4 percent and Warren at 16 percent. (Frontrunner Joe Biden was at 27.6 percent, as he has been since forever.) As of this morning, the spread between the northeastern senators had doubled: Sanders is at 20.6 percent, at Warren 15.4.

As of mid-October, Warren had arguably run the most impressive campaign on the trail, drawing large crowds, slinging out detailed policy plans, shining in debates, marching up in the polls from the single digits to nearly 24 percent. Perhaps ironically, her momentum started to founder when she began conjuring specific price tags and implementation strategies for her ambitious plans to overhaul various parts of the economy, thus opening her up to both pragmatist attacks from the center and utopian attacks from the Bernieite left.

Attempting to cast the Sanders campaign as overly bro-tastic hasn't worked so far. It's early and other factors could affect things, but my guess is that the attempts to marginalize Joe Rogan, or somehow to punish Bernie Sanders for receiving Rogan's endorsement, won't work either. If there is evidence that woke politics is broadly popular, even in the Democratic primaries, we haven't seen it yet.

Advertisement

NEXT: Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Maza (“Marxist. Him/his.”) is a rather non-influential bigot and people don’t need to bother marginalizing, he does it all himself.

    1. He’s profoundly limited by his own intelligence.

      1. So… vote for Bernie because he’s consistent?

        That might make sense… if he weren’t consistently WRONG!

        At this point, it really doesn’t matter. All of the DemonCRAP candidates are total losers except Tulsi Gabbard. She’s just a 90% loser.

        In the final analysis, do you vote for someone who promises you everything – knowing full well that they are lying (even if they’re lying “consistently”)? Or do you stick with proven success?

        Trump 2020.

  2. Bernie’s two biggest weaknesses are as follows:
    (A) He’s a straight white cis-male, which is totally boring.
    (B) He once criticized the Koch Brothers’ immigration agenda.

    Elizabeth Warren is therefore still my first choice. However I will support Bernie if he ends up getting the nomination.

    #VoteBlueNoMatterWho
    #(ExceptForGabbard)

    1. AHA! You admit Gabbard is a Democrat!

      About time your parody bot screwed up.

      1. I’ve literally called her “Putin’s favorite Democrat” countless times.

        #GabbardRussia

    2. Joe Rogan isn’t for everyone, but it probably pisses off Trump dicksuckers like you that Trump’s bullshit and lies triggers even him. Why has he foresaken your God King? Why!?!

      1. Joe Rogan isn’t for everyone

        Certainly not slack-jawed, snaggle-toothed hicklibs like yourself.

      2. I don’t know faggot. Nor do I care. Ether way, you should still kill yourself.

      3. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
        January.24.2020 at 11:23 am
        “Joe Rogan isn’t for everyone,…”

        One more comedian heard from, and scumbag here is THRILLED!
        Get back to us if you ever grow up.

      4. Yelling at the parody account never gets old when you’re an angry, bitter old man.

        1. “Yelling at the parody account never gets old when you’re an angry, bitter old man.”

          Apparently making an ass of yourself never gets old to R Mac.

      5. Rogan was never a Trump voter.

        1. I assume he votes in NY or CA, so it hardly matters anyway.

      6. Trump dicksuckers like you

        I’l always amused when left wingers forget to hide their sexism / homophobia.

        1. This weird obsession with gay oral sex continues to become more and more prevalent by lefties on this site.

          1. They all want to suck each other off and fuck each other’s assholes. And in an order that might surprise you.

      7. He has said multiple times he isnt bothered by trump and often laughs at trump’s tweets. Are you actually knowledgeable about anything? Rogan has been a Democrat for his whole life.

      8. I guess you haven’t listened much lately because he’s rightly praised trumps economy and actions regarding Iran recently. On multiple podcasts.

        But keep sucking at life hihn!

        1. So what you’re saying is that if he acknowledges a truth that is inconvenient for Democrats, he can’t be a Democrat any longer?

    3. Gee, and there I was thinking that Bernie’s biggest weakness (fault) was that he advocates a socialist agenda that would bankrupt America even faster than our current system, promote government control of EVERYTHING and generally turn America into a third-world banana republic.

  3. Sanders is rather consistent and apparently sincere in his delusions, and I see how that in itself is a quality; not totally unlike Trump’s quality of telling people to go f themselves (more or less, in refreshing fashion). The difference, of course, is that Sanders’ flaws are not character based, which even when expressed by the POTUS can demonstrably be overcome, but rather ideological and his worldview and prescriptions do no comport with mankind’s experience throughout most of the 20th century. He is better served pounding podiums in VT until he goes to the gulag in the sky.

    1. I’ve never understood why people praise consistency when the person is consistently wrong.

      1. Sooner or later, Stalin will come back into vogue, if not Vogue itself.

        1. It is the romantic love of being true to your heart and beliefs. It never seems to occur to some people that maybe sometimes your beliefs really suck and you shouldn’t be so true to them.

          1. Hitler was consistent in his beliefs too. Would Rohan have endorsed him too?

            1. Looking at Reason lately? Probably.

          2. You sound like someone who doesn’t believe that the universe revolves around the earth, or that you can tell everything about a person by phrenology, or that bubonic plague is caused by miasma (bad air).

            What’s wrong with you?

        2. You’re the guy who doesn’t seem to understand that Vladimir Putin is a dictator so I wonder if you’d even notice if Stalin was reincarnated.

          1. Was that you shrieking in the video at the Trump inauguration?

            1. You have the mind of a child.

              1. That’s at least five years more advanced than you’ve managed to achieve.

              2. Don’t worry. I’m sure he’ll give it back to you soon.

                1. Lol. That was a good one.

      2. You know who else is consistent? Fanatics. To demand complete consistency is to demand fanaticism. I have never understood the obsession with politicians never changing their views on anything.

        1. Fans? Like the people you’ll find at Trump cult rallies or the ones who get their information from Fox Cult News?
          You’re the last mfer on this planet with any insight into fanaticism.

          1. Progtard faggot, your kind are all part of a hive mind and the least individualist people in the world. You are told what to think and lap it up like an infant with its pablum.

            So don’t even start your bullshit here.

            1. I won’t be around long. I’m not a complete loser like you. I’m only slightly triggered.

              1. I’m not a complete loser like you.

                Pressing X to doubt on this one.

              2. A leftist
                January.24.2020 at 11:59 am
                “I won’t be around long…”

                Yeah, shit stains wash out.

              3. No, progtard, you won’t be around long. Not long at all.

          2. I really can’t respond to the voices in your head and your projections. Even if I could, I don’t give a shit enough to do so. So, get a shrink and work out your neurosis somewhere else where someone might care.

          3. It’s not 2004 anymore; join us in The Current Year.

          4. Nice to see you got the memo to use the word cult over and over.

          5. Pod! The ‘mfer’ is a giveaway. C’mon guy. Give it up.

        2. I have never understood the obsession with politicians never changing their views on anything.

          It doesn’t seem that it’s not about changing views. Rather, it’s about not changing views simply to win votes. The Joe Rogan’s of the world are looking for people who can enunciate a set of principles and live by them. They’re still allowed to adjust those principles over time. But in doing so they should at least say “mea culpa” and have it not be a blatantly transparent attempt to ride the mood of the moment and win votes.

          1. Bernie does not “live by” his principles. Indeed, he enjoys the largesse of government and demands everyone else eat ramen and rainwater. The man owns more than one house. Most people don’t even own their car. His defense is he is a self-made man; in reality he had made his career on the taxpayer dime, since he became mayor of Burlington in 1981. That’s almost 40 years of rent-free visibility, on an income most Bernie Bros will never get close to earning.

            I don’t think he SHOULD fix inequality, or he SHOULD live like a pauper, but he would have to divest himself of his personal fortune and live like one if he wants to demonstrate what his policies will do for people.

        3. The reason is because people know that politicians will tell everyone exactly what they want to hear, in order to have as broad an appeal as possible. Sticking to positions, even when they’re unpopular, is seen as being driven by more than simple pandering. Everyone hates pandering, except when they’re the ones being pandered to.

          This is not an endorsement of Bernie, but surely you’re intelligent enough to recognize that this is something people admire about him.

      3. A clock that is ten minutes fast is wrong all day long.

      4. You know, if you hit it with your head enough times, the wall will EVENTUALLY crumble.

        Remember, Bernie thinks bread lines are a GOOD thing.

    2. Sanders is rather consistent and apparently sincere in his delusions,

      He’s been a worthless commie piece of shit for decades.

      -jcr

  4. Like the saying goes, imperfect reality always compares badly to perfect theory.

    Lizzie spouts goals, she’s great! Lizzie spouts the vaguest plans to pay for it, she’s a party pooper.

    Hillary ought to just go away. Whatever legacy OBL thinks she had, it’s long gone, and history will just mention her slide into senility and retrospective paranoia.

    Bernie’s been spouting the same nonsensical theories for ages and has learned to not spout any details, although he did mention tripling the federal budget, which I suppose went over big because his crowd don’t understand how impossible that is.

  5. Democrats should be marginalizing him

    But aren’t the Democrats the party of marginalized people?

    I’m wonder if there is some sort of simple harmonic motion that results from being marginalized, then supported, then marginalized again…

    1. Tacoma Narrows? I mean, Seattle is possibly the most fucked-up Progressive city, it only seems right.

      1. Is that where the bridge that collapsed because of high wind was? If so, it seems appropriate.

        1. Miami is where the bridge that collapsed because of diversity is. Just for the record.

          1. Florida International University to be precise

          2. Yep. Galloping girdy

        2. A guy who believes in Space Reptilians endorsed a a Stalinist. Who gives a fuck.

    2. But aren’t the Democrats the party of marginalized people?

      They’re the party that holds “marginalized people” on their laps to show what saints they are.

    3. Don’t worry. If you’re not feeling marginalized today, check back tomorrow. Just switch identity groups or gender, and boom, you’re a victim.

      “Everything is so terrible and unfair” ™ is an ideology for the people! Most of em anyway.

      Haha.

  6. Ummm. No mention of multiple employees talking about Gulags? What about the Sanders campaign calling the police on journalists for asking for comments.

    No one cares about Warren’s attempt to cancel Bernie. It just made her look bad or insane. Even my elementary schooler asked why she brought it up after so long.

    On the other hand, EVERYONE cares about the campaigns desire to inflict violence and their subsequent shut down of social media.

    1. The people shown in those videos would end up getting political appointments if Bernie actually won. It doesn’t matter what Bernie thinks or claims to think, it matter what his supporters think and what they would do once given any authority. But, no one in the media including reason seems concerned about that. I guess reason figures they will get sent to the camps last.

      1. The people shown in those videos would end up getting political appointments

        You don’t think there would be Night of Long Knives for those people once wealthy insider Bernie got elected?

      2. We really should call it Unreason.

    2. EVERYONE cares about the campaigns desire to inflict violence and their subsequent shut down of social media

      Citation needed, because I’ve heard squat about it.

      I’d actually appreciate a link to good reporting on this, because I think the only place I’ve heard of it is in passing in the Reason comments.

      1. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/23/bernie-sanders-camp-calls-cops-project-veritas-sou/

        And the fact you haven’t heard squat is part of the problem. If it was just one crazy who was quickly disavowed, that would be normal (everyone gets their fair share of loonies). However, they are shutting down their social media instead

    3. “No mention of multiple employees talking about Gulags?”

      DECEPTIVELY EDITED VIDEOS

      FAKE SCANDAL

      1. You can see the guy’s lips moving. What more do you want?

  7. A. No one gives a shit about what Carlos Maza says.
    2. I’m disappointed Rogan didn’t endorse Gabbard.

    1. It might have been a paid endorsement.

      1. With community money

  8. That he has interviewed such even-less-acceptable people as Milo Yiannopoulos and Jordan Petersen.

    Matt, not sure if you’re doing this on purpose, but it’s Jordan Peterson.

    1. PETER-SAN! PETER-SAN!

    2. I’ve become convinced that Reason doesn’t actually have editors.

      1. Look, if you can get Milo Yianananananapolis’s name right, you can surely get Peterson vs. Petersen.

        1. *laughing*

          Well played, Diane. 😀

          Man, it’s nice to see that even after six months away, the same clever folks are still rolling strong, and the same batshit crazy ones are still yelling at the clouds. 😀

  9. browbeated

    Its still ‘browbeat’.

    ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT?!

    1. I used to have a sad about the decline of English when I’d see “lighted”, as in “he lighted the candle” or “a well-lighted room”; they just beg for “lit” and sound so primitive and clumsy in comparison. Then I found old uses of “lighted” more and more, and decided either my brain is peculiar or there’s a dastardly universal conspiracy to make me insane, and decided I’d rather be peculiar than insane, and just accepted the fact that most people have no feel for the sound of languages. They probably don’t like poetry or prose, not even the classics.

      I’ve never seen a purple cow
      I hope to never see one
      But I can tell you anyhow
      I’d rather see than be one

      1. Irregardless, I think it’s a cromulent word.

        1. If “irregardless” and “cromulent” are all you have, then you need to embiggen your vocabulary.

          1. It literally striked me as an improper use of the passed tents.

            1. You mean it literally stroke you, not striked you. Moron.

              1. You maniacs are decimating the English language!

            2. Did you have a wake for the tents? Were the attendees woke? If so… I hope the late tents were big.

      2. Lots of words in English have more than one past participle in common usage.

      3. Heh, it is the bias of the present. 😉 I’ve read a lot of colonial and early foundation era texts and it can be really difficult sometimes. Particularly when you come across things like “chuse” to indicate making a choice, or words that have completely flipped meanings (such as “doubt” which used to mean belief or fear rather than being skeptical or dubious).

        Or even the history of ‘y’all” 😛

    2. You’re not allowed to ask such a question in 2020 ussa

  10. If Rogan wanted to further fracture the Democrat primaries, this would be a great way to do it.

  11. All you Dear Leader supporter’s here have been salivating at the prospect of a Trump-Sanders matchup. To which I say: be careful what you wish for. He’s the real deal and isn’t full of crap like Clinton or Dear Leader.

    1. Well, he’s full of crap, but it’s genuine crap, which seems to be better for some reason…

    2. “full of crap like Clinton”

      Ugh, more Faux News talking points.

      Actually, Clinton was literally the most qualified candidate ever. And even with the game rigged in Drumpf’s favor — media bias, Russian hacking, Comey letter, GamerGate, etc. — she still won by 3 million votes.

      #StillWithHer

      1. Dear Leader is the only honest politician around. Why has Joe Rogan foresaken all you TrumpianS? Whyyy?!?

        1. I dont think you have the self realization to know how stupid you sound. Also how ignorant you sound.

      2. “Most qualified candidate” indeed — but I notice you are very careful to never say “candidate for what”, and it finally dawned on me — you mean “looney bin” but won’t say it, out pf respect for Bill’s sad declining days, especially now that he has lost his best friend, Jeffrey Epstein.

        #StillWithHim
        #InternsToo
        $ChildrenToo

      3. Won what? States where people openly shit in the streets?

      4. “”“full of crap like Clinton”

        Ugh, more Faux News talking points. “”

        Come on OBL, you know Clinton is her own best talking point.

    3. Bernie Sanders is your crazy old uncle who really just wants a shot at being president for real.

      1. Much like my crazy Uncle, Sanders has admitted he doesn’t study or care about economic theory.

  12. Also, I don’t understand Rogan’s appeal. I tried listening to his show and found the interviews to be entirely too long and not very interesting. His interview with Sanders was especially unimpressive — it was the first time I really listened to a long interview with Sanders and was even less impressed with him. I get that Rogan’s style is to cozy up to his guests, but he also left some really outrageous stuff unchallenged.

    Clearly I’m in the minority here, but I don’t know what I’m missing.

    1. If you ever actually listen to Bernie, he is just boring and incoherent. I don’t think many people have actually had to listen to Bernie for more than a soundbite. Once they do, whatever appeal he had for most people will likely go away very quickly. He comes across as a crazy old man who corners you at a party and starts ranting.

      1. No no no. He’s the crazy old man who corners you at a party to tell you a woman can’t get elected President.

        1. And also speaks glowingly of how when a woman has sex that she fantasizes about being raped by three men at once.

          Seriously, he actually wrote about that.

    2. “but he also left some really outrageous stuff unchallenged”

      This is a consistent issue with his listeners, especially conservatives. Joe will let progressives spout off bullshit economics and not even question it.

      Before Joe was rich he was fiscally conservative. Now that he doesn’t have to worry about what taxes will do to him he doesn’t seem to care.

    3. His comedy specials are pretty funny, but you’re right, his show is tedious as hell. He really needs to figure out how to tighten those up.

    4. peaked @NewsRadio

      1. But it was an awesome peak

        “I couldn’t find any goth kids in the park, so I just beat up some skaters”

        RIP Bill McNeel/Troy McClure

        1. it was. Steven Root still everywhere so i like that

        2. I think I have heard of Troy McClure. What other shows might I have seen him in?

          1. Such tv shows as ‘My Uncle, the Port o Potty’, and ‘Drew Blood Private Phlebotomist’.

    5. I enjoy his show in doses. He really does let his guests talk about pretty much what ever they want which is kind of a refreshing format. It’s far less structured than even Stern was for a long time. He tries harder than most to be fair and hear them out.

    6. I’ve watched a handful of his interviews about politics and a handful with actors and scientists. The political interviews are kinda crap, the others are pretty decent.

      1. His interview with Nick Bostrom was painful. Bostrom was trying to explain his simulation hypothesis to him and it was clear that Rogan just couldn’t understand Bostrom’s reasoning about conditional probability. But Rogan kept repeating the same question for 45 minutes. That’s when I realized that he just isn’t that smart, and that if I want good interviews with smart people, I’m better off sticking with something like Econ Talk.

        Which is fine. Rogan can still be strictly about entertainment, I guess.

        1. Well, it can’t all be William F. Buckley.

    7. Rogan’s great and the reason he’s massively popular is there’s always been a place for long form interviews (I’ve been a fan for decades) but the modern gate-kept media didn’t want it. Rogan talks to an interesting spectrum of people and in my opinion he asks great questions and is always respectful. No, I’m not interested in every guest, but that’s the point. He’s got something for everyone.

      1. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

        1. Yes!!! = Rogan talks to an interesting spectrum of people and in my opinion he asks great questions and is always respectful.

      2. Not really. Most his guests are athletes or some other bs. One or two are interesting. And that is that.

        1. Most of his guests are comedians. Outside of UFC guys he’s had few athletes.

          1. True, but are never the ones I like. And he has way too much UFC people.

            1. He has 2 jobs outside of his podcast, comedy and UFC. It is rational he has on people he finds interesting.

        2. I miss ‘Tough Crowd’. The Comedy Central show Colin Quinn hosted. That show was fun, and no holds barred.

      3. Spot on. I love how politically/thought diverse his guests are.

    8. I’ve been listening to (some of) his podcasts for about a year now.
      If you wanted to box him in, he seems to be mostly liberal (healthcare, welfare, taxes, green energy, etc.), but will call bs on cancel culture and is pro gun. Definitely pro legalization on most drugs.

      It can be frustrating that he doesn’t call people out on things, but the truth is, he’s just not that educated or informed. Critical thinking is not his strong point and as long as it passes the sniff test, he won’t really challenge his guests.

      He does do a lot of great interviews. Some are just better skipped over. You usually know after twenty minutes if it’ll be good.

      1. Yep, Joe, many times is like Trump…his opinions can be easily swayed by the last person that he talked to. He’s had a number of excellent guests touting the inherent strengths of capitalism and free markets and will agree most of the time, but then gets swept up into the emotional calls for socialistic policies by the likes of Bernie and Abby Martin.

        So, I like Joe for various reasons, but not for his economic critical thinking ability.

        1. He pretty openly admits that he doesn’t know much which is why he’ll let his guests talk without interruption. I did see one though where he did jump on somebody he knew was trying to bullshit.

          1. He kinda tore Candice Owens apart during her episode. She has a lot of half-baked thoughts so she mostly did it with her own words. All Joe did was ask some fairly basic follow up questions and her arguments fell apart.

    9. I get bored during his podcast. Each one needs to be cut in half. To me Rogan’s sweet spot is when talking about sports, nutrition, and fitness topics. He is completely incurious about things when it comes to politics.

      1. The JRE Experience clips on youtube are better suited to your tastes.

    10. True. I don’t see why he is so popular. And he doesn’t even have good guests. Looking at the episode list, there is like, three I may care about.

    11. I like him when he is interviewing people I’m interested in.

    12. You have to listen to the entire episode with Alex Jones. Its pure gold. By the end I was crying laughing. Joe Rogan begs Alex Jones to go into comedy by the end.

    13. Check out his interview with Jesse Ventura.

      Jesse spouted off a great deal of conspiracy BS. Not one bit of it was challenged by Joe.

    14. Joe’s fine. Bernie is truly a duller than shit individual.

      He lets his guests make their points and asks, honestly, very basic questions that anybody competent should be able to answer.

      Haven’t seen his Candace Owens interview…but his Adam Conover one was basically a dissection.

  13. >>Rogan is an incredibly influential bigot and Democrats should be marginalizing him.

    the fuck is this guy *marginalizing* anyone? if he tried it hand-to-hand i bet Rogan kicks his ass.

    also >>one of the most popular podcasters in history

    means very little

    1. Do you even understand the words you denigrate? “Popular” and “influential” go hand in hand, and as regards elections, do matter.

      Whether they matter 10 months from now is an entirely different affair.

      1. >>>“Popular” and “influential” go hand in hand

        sure, but “podcast” is a joke. influential to eleven people is a cub scout group.

        1. You should try to catch up.

          1. one dude smoked a j on his show and now Bernie …

            1. “By April 2019 the podcast had 190 million downloads a month.”

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joe_Rogan_Experience#Impact

              This is one of those times you’d be better off admitting you were unaware of something and move on.

              1. 190 million who gather together to show the extreme depths of Joe’s influence through action or 190 million who listen to his shit at differing times and then do nothing?

                1. Or don’t. I don’t really care.

                  1. He probably thinks john Stewart was highly influential with just 2 million viewers.

                    1. Jon Stewart was highly influential with journalists. This meant tons of breathy articles about how witty and political savvy he was, despite his relatively low viewership.

  14. This is how you win elections – marginalize more mainstream people who want to vote for your candidate.

    Oh well, when Bernie can’t find enough non-binary Communists to put him over the top, I guess cities will have to burn because of how rigged it was.

    Is Reason still not talking about all the bloodthirsty terrorists attracted to that campaign for some reason?

    1. The level of Orange Man Bad they have to adhere to means that they can’t point out when Orange Man’s opposition is also bad.

    2. >>marginalize more mainstream people who want to vote for your candidate

      it was the “H! 2016” plan

  15. The democratic parties imminent collapse is going to be greatly amusing. This impeachment is going to fail and simultaneously torpedo Biden’s campaign due to Hunter’s malfeasance. Bernie’s going to end up taking the primary after he wins Iowa and New Hampshire. Come the convention we could be looking at another 68 type situation where they fear a Bernie ticket so much for the possible down ballot implications they broker a convention with the Supers. All of this is on the table and noones talking about it or reporting on it. If this were the Republicans we would be seeing nothing but articles about how much of a disarray they are in and how politically doomed they are.

    1. I don’t know what they are going to do. If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination a huge chunk of their base will walk away from their party and likely not vote or vote third party. If Bernie does get the nomination, an even bigger portion of the party will stay home or vote third party and all of the suburban independents they won over to get the House in 18 will run for the hills.

      The problem is I don’t know how they will fix things if Trump wins. If Trump wins, each side will blame the other for him winning. The divisions that are there now will only get worse before 2024.

      1. You guys are forgetting the spoiler here: Bloomberg. He’s the most electable candidate since Dukakis.

        1. Sure, Bloomberg is a self-righteous prick, but does he really have what it takes to be the next Fritz Mondale?

          -jcr

      2. If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination a huge chunk of their base will walk away from their party and likely not vote or vote third party.

        Keep in mind that Bernie himself is third party. The fact that the Democrats were comfortable allowing a Socialist to run under their banner right up until the moment some of them got scared shitless he might actually win ought to be an object lesson in the danger of riding tigers.

        1. I frankly wouldn’t be shocked if it came out that Hilary funded and encouraged him to run in 2016.

        2. In the Dems defense, they have the same issue the GOP has.

          They cannot claim anybody is not a member.

          If somebody runs and says “I’m a Democrat” they cannot actually do anything. Everybody in the party can say “The fuck you are, son”, but if the paperwork is submitted for the primaries, they are Democrats.

    2. torpedo Biden’s campaign due to Hunter’s malfeasance.

      Hunter is just Joe’s bag man. That money wasn’t for him.

      -jcr

  16. Beat me to it.

    Being consistently aligned with some of the most destructive ideas in human history isn’t exactly a positive trait.

    I actually enjoy some of his interviews, but perhaps Joe’s head has been struck too many times.

    1. Rogan has populist leanings, I don’t hold his support for Bernie against him.

  17. You know who else was insanely consistent his whole Mein Kampf?

    1. Alanis Morisette?

    2. Rudolf Hess?

    3. Arnold Hister?

  18. I really like Sanders and Rogan. Warren not so much but I would still vote for her in a heartbeat over virtually anyone on team red.

    1. At least this one is honest

      1. Will he be as straightforward about the gulags as Bernie’s staffers?

        Pretty interesting Reason hasn’t said much about that.

        One would think libertarian magazine (even if mild in its positions) would kinda take issue with shaffers of a candidate promoting gulags and re-education camps.

        But that’s me.

        1. Yeah, you’d think this would be an issue for Libertarians.

          But unreason ain’t fond of James O’Keefe, so he gets ignored.

    2. “I really like Sanders and Rogan….”

      Bragging about being a fucking idiot.

      1. Eh, I like Rogan, but that’s probably just because I like MMA and Joe knows quite a bit about it. Maybe I only like him because I tend to limit his podcast to when he has MMA-related guests on.

        Bernie on the other hand needs to take a hike, preferably off of a bridge.

        1. Didn’t Rogan help kill the comedy career of Carlos Mencia?

          If so, we should ALL be grateful.

    3. Is this Suderman’s new sock?

  19. “First it was Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) asserting on January 13 that Sanders told her in a private December 2018 conversation that he did not believe a woman could win the presidency.”

    Still waiting for an explanation of how there can be FOUR “independent yet anonymous” witnesses to a private conversation.
    Surely Bernie could tell us who else was there, and we could figure out who the sources are, and maybe just for laughs consider their credibility.

    1. Bernie is so old he can’t remember if he’s in drawers or depends, let alone who he had a meeting with last month.

      1. I find your logic less than compelling.

      2. if not for socialist idiots, Bernie would be living in a piss soaked alley in NY, incoherently screaming his stupid ideas at a garbage can.

  20. Forget Jim Rogan, I still can’t get my head around the socialism and support for Sanders I see from Jim Cornette.

    “A healthy chunk of his podcasts are spent blasting Donald Trump and anyone who supports the president. The self-described “democratic socialist” considers Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren the best candidates in 2020. Cornette regularly lectures listeners, many of whom don’t agree with his politics, on why they should never vote Republican.”

    —-The American Conservative

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-wwe-legend-who-wrestles-the-woke-left/

    How does a wrestling guy from Kentucky, whose about as unwoke as unwoke can be, and has been all his life, somehow end up as a self-described democratic socialist?

    He’s a fucking carney-ass, entrepreneur that, over the course of his career, has done shit so offensive to social justice warriors, it makes their worst caricatures of the unwoke look tame by comparison.

    Cornette is considered old-timey and stuck in the past by other people in the wrestling industry. Finding out that this guy is a democratic socialist is like finding out that Mother Theresa’s favorite album was Rush’s 2112 and she would crank it up after smoking weed every night. Cornette’s democratic socialism is like Jesus being born by way of immaculate conception or Mohammed dictating the Koran despite being illiterate–it’s an ex nihlo miracle.

    I listen to his podcasts because he’s FAF–listening to him talk about wrestling is far more interesting than wrestling itself. I’d think he was kayfabe democratic socialist, but if that’s what’s going on, he’s been doing it for a long time–and continued to do so after exiting the business.

    1. *shrug*

      You’re just witnessing more evidence of the political spectrum being flipped on its head. The reasons why would never fit into this comment box.

    2. Cornette’s from Louisville, which has been a Democratic stronghold forever, and still lives there. His politics aren’t all that surprising in that context.

    3. “How does a wrestling guy from Kentucky, whose about as unwoke as unwoke can be, and has been all his life, somehow end up as a self-described democratic socialist?”

      Never having met the guy, you probably don’t know him as well as you think you do.

    4. Kentucky is poor as fuck. I’ve been all over that state. They receive shit tons of welfare – both at the corporate and individual level. I’m not surprised that to hear of democratic socialists coming out of Louisville.

    5. “He’s a fucking carney-ass, entrepreneur that, over the course of his career, has done shit so offensive to social justice warriors, it makes their worst caricatures of the unwoke look tame by comparison.”

      He does it for his “hick” audience. Sure, his shit was racist as all hell, but he had to attract “rednecks” so it’s all good.

  21. “He’s been insanely consistent his entire life.”
    No, he’s been consistently insane.

    1. He also stopped all the “seize the means of production” talk once he stopped being a weirdo state legislator from Vermont and started trying to win national elections.

      He hasn’t been consistent, he’s tempered his communist tendencies (at least in public speaking) in an attempt to gain more mainstream support. He’s a whore, just like all politicians.

  22. I barely know who Joe Rogan is and I have almost no attention span so I’m not going to watch/listen to his shit. So, did he endorse Sanders for president, or did he just say he was going to vote for Bernie in the Democrat presidential preference primary?

    There’s a world of difference between those things. I endorse primary voting for outsiders and “extremists” of either party as a vote against the intolerance and authoritarianism of the “center”.

    1. My understanding is just for the primary, but I don’t really give a shit so I haven’t bothered checking.

      1. And u less he lives in a swing state it hardly matters.

  23. This shows how important “purity” is to the far left identitarian progressive types…they’ll spit on an endorsement from the biggest podcaster on the planet because he’s not “one of them”. Back in 2012, being a Ron Paul supporter, if progressive douchebags like Cenk Ugar or Sam Seder would have thrown support to Paul, I would have welcomed them into the tent…purity gets you nowhere.

    1. Libertarians know a thing or two about keeping a political party as small as possible.

  24. Maza is a cunt.

    Rogan is in perpetual Joey ‘Wo!’ mode and half-stoned.

    Is it any surprise he’d choose to be a useful idiot?

    He can physically break a bone, but he’s not intellectually strong.

    It’s like he never heard a single word of warning from several of his guests about the dangers of contemporary progressive-socialism.

  25. So I went into that ham’s twitter feed. First, Maza is precisely the reason why civil discourse they talk a lot about is in disarray. Calling anyone a ‘bigot’ is the refuge of a pathetic mind. Rogan ain’t no bigot.

    But these days, everyone’s a ‘bigot’ to Marxist clowns like Maza.

    It didn’t take long to see much derp;

    “JulietJeske
    13h13 hours ago
    More
    Replying to @gaywonk
    I’m glad you said something. I’m not a fan. Rogan has also promoted several right wing nut jobs by putting them on his show. He had Milo, Gavin McInnes, Jordan Peterson, Stephen Crowder to just scratch the surface.”

    Riiiiight. That’s exactly what Peterson is. A right-wing ‘nut job’.

    People just talk out of their shitty asses sometimes.

    1. The idea that merely having someone “bad” on your show is itself evil implies some interesting things. First, it suggests a deep fear that the what the “bad” guest will say will resonate with listeners. That’s not a crazy fear: people believe stupid shit that sounds right all the time. But more importantly, and ironically, the resulting shunning of the “bad” guy suggests to a lot of people that his opponents are actually unable to mount an argument against him; this gives him even more credibility.

    2. I’d also argue that just putting them on the podcast is not promoting anyone.

      If those guests are as inherently dumb as the left claims, wouldn’t putting them on the podcast just be giving them more rope to hang themselves with?

      1. These are the same people that say making jokes about Trump is “normalizing” him while simultaneously saying making jokes about trans people is “violence.”

        They’re fuckheads that don’t give a shit about any kind of logical consistency.

    3. I’m perfectly fine with any guests on any show. Period.

      Rogan can have on anyone he damn pleases.

      This bull shit about the political leanings of his guests somehow makes him marked for death is retarded.

      I find he’s been pretty good on that front. He’s had all sorts of guests from all political stripes and handled them well.

      He may be ignorant where history and politics are concerned (at least he plays that part) but I commend him for the platform he offers.

      Maza is a cunt. I’d love to see that jack off in a real debate or in a casual setting Rogan offers. Have Peterson opposite him and have a go.

      If he does well and shows me some depth of intellect, then I’ll take back what I said. But a guy who looks to censure and make false claims of racism, isn’t off to a good start.

      1. “Have Peterson opposite him and have a go.”

        There was a debate between Peterson and the Marxist/Psychoanalytical theorist Slavoz Zizek in Toronto a few months back. I watched and found it interesting. They seemed to agree more than disagree with each other.

        1. Yes. It didn’t go as people probably thought it was going to go.

          They seemed genuinely interested in each other’s takes and were extremely civil.

          Still, Zizek can really go off the trail.

          1. “Zizek can really go off the trail.”

            He can free associate as well as any Freudian.

    4. “”Calling anyone a ‘bigot’ is the refuge of a pathetic mind. “”

      The Rev hit hardest.

  26. Maza is gay, and socialist. That makes him a skid Marxist.

  27. Reason/Libertarian movement should be trying like hell to get someone from the editors round table on there to spread the message. He consistently has progressive/socialist voices on his show with little to zero push back from him because quite frankly, he’s very ignorant on the subject of liberty and authoritarianism/statism. His followers, which are vast in numbers, eat up everything he says and having an actual libertarian, no idiot Dave Rubin doesn’t count, will do more to help the cause than anything the LP or getting someone on cable news has ever done.

    1. I think Rubin Just went neocon/petersonfanboy now, but god, he is way better than Rogan.

      1. Rubin gave one of the worst defenses of libertarianism I think I’ve ever heard when he was on Rogan. Rubin’s actual show does have some good episodes, I’ll agree.

        My main point is we desperately need better messengers and messaging platforms. I think Nick, Katherine, Peter, and Matt are very good messengers and I think Rogan’s podcast would be a great messaging platform.

        I live in Austin where seemingly everyone listens to Rogan’s show and where the population, in general, at one point was very sympathetic to libertarian views. Over the last 4 years, the city has gotten larger and moved further to the left.

        1. Austin has a lot of incoming refugees from California so that might be why things are getting more left. That’s my totally uninformed guess.

          I used to donate monthly to the Rubin Report when it first kicked off. Then I realized Rubin is a little stupid. I mean that with all sincerity. I got bored with his show so I stopped donating.

    2. His followers, which are vast in numbers, eat up everything he says and having an actual libertarian, no idiot Dave Rubin doesn’t count, will do more to help the cause than anything the LP or getting someone on cable news has ever done.

      I’m pretty sure his viewers/listeners (not “followers” – whatever the fuck that means) are just like you and me and like to have a fun podcast to listen to during their commute or while they do chores around the house.

      This idea that you’re the only one thinking in your own mind when you watch content is silly. I like Joe Rogan a lot, but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve rolled my eyes at him and thought “wow Joe you’re a fucking idiot on this.” Don’t assume that his viewers/listeners are mindless drones that just change all of their closely held beliefs because Joe has a podcast.

      1. I think people are being unfair to Rogan. People want a public figure to be “right” about an issue, and if they’re perceived to be wrong, they’re “idiots”. Joe Rogan is intellectually curious, and he has great guests and asks great questions of them. Sometimes he misses some opportunities to push on certain guests, hence the infamous Tim Pool followup interview with the Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and his “safety team” lackey.

        Peterson pointed this out about Rogan and I wholeheartedly agree: When Joe Rogan asks a question, he actually wants to know the answer. What Peterson meant by that is the media is stacked to the rafters with opinionated hacks who don’t ask questions to get an answer, but ask them to stake out their own position, or trick the person being questioned into certain rhetorical corners.

        You don’t have to agree with Joe Rogan on every issue, but the media needs more people like Joe Rogan, not less.

        1. *fewer.

          Tim Cavanaugh will be by shortly to make his corrections.

        2. You nailed it. I think this is why I like Rogan so much.

        3. “Joe Rogan is intellectually curious, and he has great guests and asks great questions of them.” He really isn’t. And most of his guests are people I don’t care about. From his last 30 videos or something the only guests I could find that I can see myself watching are Michael Malice (That I can hear in other places), Bill Maher (Who I don’t care about in years), Forrest Galante (I don’t know nothing about him, but he wasn’t a comedian/athlete), Boyan Slat (Same as the previous) and S.C. Gwynne (Same as the previous). Most of his guests are boring.

          1. Even Stefan Molyneux has better guests than Rogan (Erin Pizzey, Murray A. Straus, Brendon Marotta). And I almost never listen to Molyneux and his Race/IQ views.

          2. He really isn’t. And most of his guests are people I don’t care about.

            Well, there’s always Logan Paul I guess.

            1. Touché. Well, Logan Paul isn’t dumber than the average Joe Rogan guest. Do you even now the people I listened in my last comment? Erin Pizzey or Murray Straus? Because I don’t think you.

              1. *I don’t think you know.

        4. “Peterson pointed this out about Rogan and I wholeheartedly agree: When Joe Rogan asks a question, he actually wants to know the answer.” – God, Peterson is so boring. You know it is the downfall when people are actually quoting Peterson.

        5. “When Joe Rogan asks a question, he actually wants to know the answer.” It is a shame most questions he does are really dumb.

        6. Diane…I agree wholeheartedly. I’m a Gen Xer and I occasionally listen to JRE. Why?

          The format is great. It is an unscripted, unrehearsed, free form discussion of 1-3 hours. You can dive very deep, or skim a bunch of topics in that time frame. The guest list is impressive. The topics have unbelievable variety. It could be science, sports, politics, philosophy, anti-aging, automation, you name it. The MMA guys, I skip those those, not my cup of tea.

          I really liked his interviews with Tulsi and Yang. I came away informed about what they believe, which I appreciated. The Bern’s interview was Ok. IMO, the 2020 POTUS candidates are missing a golden opportunity by not going on his show. Young adults in their 20’s and 30’s listen to JRE a lot.

          I don’t see the problem here with his ‘endorsement’ {did he really, though?}. He has disclosed it. To me, it is transparency that matters.

      2. I think you’re right, followers is a bad term. I’ve been listening to his show for 10 years so by that metric someone would call me a follower, and it is very true that there are people like you and me that roll our eyes at some of the stuff he says. But I think for the most part a lot of his listeners put a lot of stock into what he says.

        My main point is, Rogan’s podcast is a huge platform and progressives/socialist/people who want to grow the state have used it to really get their message out and I think Reason would do well to try to at least get on at some point so combat some of those other episodes.

        There definitely is an influx of people from California, but it is also a lot of people from rural Texas and border states like Oklahoma, Lousiana. Places, where you think, would be more sympathetic to libertarian views.

        1. Reason should have people stationed on every major highway crossing a California border, and handing fliers to everyone leaving.

  28. Maza is from that part of the social media left that prioritizes deplatforming various influential people who have various unacceptable views.

    So… exactly like every writer at Reason?

  29. Only in politics do we cast a vote for people who have never worked an honest day in the lives.

    How you can be a self-respecting, hard working individual with an ostensibly informed free mind and free will and vote for a deadbeat commie like Bernie in all his illiberal fantasies is beyond me to grasp.

    But that’s me.

    1. Only in politics do we cast a vote for people who have never worked an honest day in the lives.

      And if you don’t vote then you can’t complain.

      At least that’s what all the tards like to say.

      1. I once spent half an hour trying to explain to two young, passionately democratic friends of mine why their votes are essentially worthless, and why voting is a waste of time and money. These are pretty smart people, certainly everyone present was above the average. In fact they hold degrees which I lack.

        Still, they insisted that my argument, that individuals votes are mathematically worthless (especially in national votes) did not hold water. They could not really explain why though. They insisted voting is still important.

        They also used to make the argument I can’t complain if I don’t make the symbolic voting gesture. I disabused them of this.

        1. In fact they hold degrees which I lack.

          That’s your first clue they spent a combined eight-man years learning things that weren’t true.

        2. Civic Pride is part of the calculation when we look at how likely a person is to vote. At least that’s what they taught me in public policy courses.

          Value is subjective, you know that.

          The whole “you can’t complain if you didn’t vote” argument is stupid on its face, I agree.

        3. Regardless of whether or not you vote, you’re still subject to all the stupid shit the winner of an election wants to do. That’s all the cause I need to complain.

          Beyond that, if you’re a libertarian you frequently don’t even have anyone running worth voting for. I frequently don’t even have an opportunity to vote for someone who would do what I want, and if I do have that opportunity they have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning and even less chance of implementing their ideas if they do win.

          I still vote, but it is largely pointless.

  30. In other news…Goldman will no longer underwrite IPOs in the U.S. or Europe that contain 100% white, straight male directors. What does “white” mean?

    1. Unreason still has no concerns about “woke” capitalism, I assume.

  31. Anyone interested in Atlantis, the ancient cities of America, and other pseudo-archeological topics should check out Rogan’s interview with Graham Hancock.

    1. I respect fabulists when they call themselves fiction writers and produce novels.

    2. Do they get into all the incidences of Jesus saving earth throughout history? After he regenerated into the second Jesus at Easter.

  32. “He’s been insanely consistent his entire life–consistently, insanely wrong . . . consistently holding to stupid ideas that lead to poverty and to higher Democide figures.” FIFY, Joe.

  33. A guy who believes in Space Reptilians endorsed a a Stalinist. Who gives a fuck.

  34. But aren’t the Democrats the party of marginalized people?

  35. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……………..> http://www.money34.com

  36. “That the comedian and Mixed Martial Arts broadcaster finds it “preposterous” for male-born athletes to compete against women after transitioning.” And yet, he would say nothing about how evil the olympics are. Would he ever have Andrew Zimbalist in his podcast? No, he needs talk about important subjects such as the UFC. Really, who cares?

    1. I don’t now why he cares, women who plays sports are not even real women to beign with. (I am making fun of Rogan for his stupid “real men blablabla” bullshit. Rogan should take his head out of his ass.)

    2. This is late but what he was complaining about was transwomen fighting natural women AND NOT TELLING HER. That’s obviously a huge fucking safety concern, and he’s right to call fighters who do that out. He specifically said that if a natural woman WANTS to fight a transwoman knowingly, that’s fine.

  37. Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job But Was Able To Stay On Top By Banking Continuously $1500 Per Week With An Online Work She Found Over The Internet… Check The Details….. Read more

  38. which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……………..> Read more

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.