Why Kamala Harris Bailed on Joe Rogan
"The campaign had made decision to pursue the interview and the Vice President was prepared to do it," says one staffer.

In the closing weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris had an opportunity to appear on the Joe Rogan Experience, the most popular podcast in the country. Ultimately, she declined the interview.
You are reading Free Media, Robby Soave's newsletter on free speech, social media, and why everyone in the media is wrong everywhere all the time. Don't miss an article. Sign up for Free Media. It's free and you can unsubscribe any time.
Former President Donald Trump certainly made the most of his three-hour conversation with Rogan. The video version racked up 38 million views on YouTube in just three days. Rogan ultimately endorsed Trump the night before the election.
It would be naïve to think that Rogan—who has drifted toward the right, despite his support for Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2019—was ever going to endorse Harris. And it's probably the case that most of Rogan's viewers, who skew younger and male, would be more positively inclined toward Trump than Harris.
Even so, 40 million is a lot of viewers. If Harris could have made a positive impression among some small subset of those Rogan fans, the interview would have been worth doing. Moreover, the interview would have helped her counter the argument that she is stiff and impersonal—if, that is, she did a good enough job. In other words, Harris had much to gain from a successful appearance.
It's possible that Harris just wasn't up to the task of making conversation with Rogan for three hours. If she declined for that reason, then that was her choice; indeed, Rogan himself thinks she opted not to do the interview because her team disliked the time commitment and the lack of editing.
But a different explanation was given by Jennifer Palmieri, an advisor to Doug Emhoff, the vice president's husband. Palmieri told The Financial Times that Harris' team ultimately turned down Rogan because of "concerns at how the interview would be perceived within the Democratic Party."
"There was a backlash with some of our progressive staff that didn't want her to be on it," said Palmieri.
In fairness, that could be a convenient excuse: Maybe Harris didn't feel up to the interview, and her team is scapegoating someone else.
But if true, it's yet another revealing glimpse at how young, progressive staffers are ruining Democratic campaigns and tanking Democratic-aligned institutions in the media, entertainment, education, and elsewhere. As independent journalist Zaid Jilani wrote on X: "The news that Kamala Harris ditched Rogan because she was scared of progressive backlash just confirms my thesis that she was not ready for prime time. You can't negotiate with Putin or Kim Jong Un if you can't handle Joe Rogan and a 23 year old staffer."
Palmieri has walked back her claims, writing on X that scheduling issues rather than progressive staffers' frustrations was the primary reason the interview did not take place.
"Regardless of any blowback, the campaign had made decision to pursue the interview and the Vice President was prepared to do it," she wrote.
Still, it's telling that there was comparatively little speculation that Harris' proximity to, say, former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney would irk progressive staffers. Is the Democratic Party tent big enough for Cheney but not for Rogan?
This Week on Free Media
I am joined by Amber Duke to discuss Trump nominating Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) to be secretary of state, the media blaming Elon Musk and misinformation for causing Trump's victory, the Democratic Party's blame game, and whether the Education Department can be abolished.
Worth Watching
It's been a while since a Marvel property impressed me much—I haven't yet had time for Agatha All Along—but I admit the latest trailer for Thunderbolts was pretty good.
"We are the THUNDERBOLTS*!"
Watch the #D23Brasil Special Look of Marvel Studios' #Thunderbolts* in theaters May 2, 2025. pic.twitter.com/c0g2x5EdnI
— Marvel Studios (@MarvelStudios) November 9, 2024
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Rogan—who has drifted toward the right
No. No, he hasn't. He stayed in the same spot. The left drifted away.
True
As the Space Man puts it: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/04/elon-musk-36.jpg
The left drifted away.
Drifted isn't the word I'd use.
Slipped and slid away.
Sniveled and crawled.
Yeah. Rogan has not really changed a view of his. The Left, on the other hand, has nearly completely changed all of their views from ten years ago.
Rogan - I endorsed Sanders. I endorsed RFK.
That's so right way I know.
I've listened to Rogan for years. He is pretty much the same guy but his view of government sure has changed after what he saw in California and what they media and government tried to do to him over Covid.
No matter who or what she blames, the truth is there was very little upside and lots of downside to her going on Rogan. I'm sure Rogan would not have sprung a trap on her and pressed too hard on anything, but his audience is not who she was trying to reach. Just talking for a couple of hours is not one of her strengths. She was bound to say something like she fell out of a coconut tree.
His audience is who she should have been trying to reach. Everyone to Trump's left was voting for her already. She could afford to offend them.
You talk like her !! Afford to offend them. either you stand for something or you don't.
What are her strengths?, talking should be one...
Ask Mayor Willie.
he always had a position on his staff for her. he appreciated her willingness to get something straight between them
Talking clearly is not the top skill for her mouth.
Oral arguments...
Lip service
Going on Joe Rogan was pure upside, so long as she could talk unscripted for 3 hours without resorting to word salad and canned answers. Which for her was an impossible task as she can't go 5 minutes without doing so.
5 minutes? She couldn’t do 30 seconds.
This is the most likely correct answer.
Rogan got Trump to say all kinds of things that he has never said in public before, most notably, that he didn't know what he was doing after he got elected the first time and unfortunately listened to a bunch of swamp creatures when it came to Cabinet appointments.
What secretes would have spilled out of Harris that she didn't want to admit to? Certainly nothing that would have benefited her campaign.
That is exactly why she didn't do Rogan and put up obstacles to appearing then making noise like it was Rogan's fault. She can't talk for any length of time authentically on any subject because she is too busy trying to say nothing so as to offend no one as well as just not being that smart and knowing much of anything. Rogan would have treated her like he treats everyone and just talked about a ton of stuff like he did with Trump and Vance but she can't carry on a conversation on any subject. The fact her campaign asked him if he edited and he said absolutely not let the cat out of the bag. No kid glove treatment like CBS gave her. They also said they wouldn't talk about legalization of marijuana because of her background putting people in jail over it in California.
Harris needed young men. That cohort was won by Biden in 2020, and she lost it in 2024. It represented roughly 75% of her margin of loss. She absolutely needed these votes.
Harris needed young men… She absolutely needed these votes.
I mean, that’s a lot of blowjobs. Even if you switch to handies, that’s still asking a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx3wDTzqDTs
Lol
I WAS HOWLING! that was some of the funniest stuff i've seen in a long time. you see it's important to understand math so we can trust the science!
She wasn't going to get them no matter what she did. The Dems and the corporate press have demonized men so much with the "toxic masculinity" nonsense and Believe All Women plus DEI keeping them from getting ahead no matter what they did that they were jumping off the Dem train in record numbers.
Yes, if I'm getting crushed in males/youth vote I'll ignore places to go try and win them. I'll go on the View right?
If she'd have done even marginally well on Rogan, she might have converted a good chunk of fence sitters.
By the time it got down to the last week there were no fence sitters she could have converted left. She alienated about everyone with the wacko's she surrounded herself with, Obama and Big Mike scolding people and Biden calling everyone who liked Trump Garbage. It's hard to come back from that whether or not your paying Beyonce and Lizzo to show up at events for you. She was and is a total media creation who had an unserious empty campaign. A ton of people felt that something was wrong with her no matter what.
It wouldn't be a trap but just asking her to explain a word salad answer in a cogent manner. Her views are nonsense and at odds with themselves with no explanation as to why other than political winds shifting.
The journey from law and order DA to defund the police bail matron could be an interesting tale of personal change or experience or it could be that's where the votes seemed to be and only one of those makes good viewing or confident voting.
"But a different explanation was given by Jennifer Palmieri, an advisor to Doug Emhoff"
Let's hope for her sake Emhoff agrees with that explanation.
It was a bullshit explanation. As much as I like them throwing the Blue Fundamentalists under the bus, everyone knows she didn't go on because she was afraid of being off script for a 3 hour conversation.
I'm going to leave open the possibility that she's actually correct.
I've watched a few DNC insiders who left the reservation after Kamala's loss, and did some interviews on podcasts such as Triggernometry. They describe being eviscerated by their friends, and losing a good chunk of them. This is a real phenomenon inside the party that "unfriends people on facebook for political views 80% more than Republicans do"
I'm going with both. She cannot talk coherently for long stretches, her policy plans and flip flops make no sense and any slip from current leftist orthodoxy will torch whatever post VP political career she thinks she has. Hell, staying in leftist orthodoxy and having that generate further bad reactions to it could get her cremated in leftist circles.
I'd like to know why a VP spouse who has no power to do anything and no one really cares about has a "senior advisor".
I guess you could say he slapped that bitch down.
She didn't go on because she and her handlers correctly understood she was not going to come out looking good. When your entire electoral program is hoping the electorate doesn't figure out what you really believe more exposure is not a positive. Further since these positions are less hers than the generic far left positions of the Dem Party she needs to win them over she isn't very good at explaining them. Then because she is effectively never in front of even an even-handed questioner and audience she doesn't know how to speak without trapping herself into admissions she doesn't want to make.
I haven't scoured many articles over the last couple of days, but has Reason covered the shenanigans with the Harris administration literally giving money to various celebrities, podcasts and CNN commentators in exchange for positive coverage?
Still baffled why there was no obligation for her to put up a disclaimer that she paid for the Oprah Town Hall. And paid for the set for the sex podcast. And paid for all of her endorsements.
If disclaimers were not needed --- why do we have election finance laws at all?
why do we have election finance laws at all?
Uh, to Trump up charges against the (R)ight candidates?
Not that I have seen. It's all TDS.
Funny, she is trying to fund raise to pay it off now.
1 billion dollars, ending 20 million in debt.
That money, reportedly up to $500,000, she gave to Sharpton's outfit a few days before appearing on his show at MSNBC just to get softball questions is very interesting and I bet there are about to be a bunch of hard questions asked about it.
It would be naïve to think that Rogan—who has drifted toward the right, despite his support for Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2019—
This is what we called relativity in action. When the ship you're on gallops to the left, Robbie, it looks like everything else is 'drifting right'.
Further, if Trump has adopted the following concepts:
Restricting immigration: Popular with Democrats in the 1970s/80s.
Tariffs: Popular with Democrats since forever.
Trying to bring back manufacturing jobs with protectionist schemes: Popular with Democrats up through the 1980s.
General coziness with Big Labor: Popular with Democrats since forever.
could we say that Trump has 'drifted left'?
Basically what Musk said too
Or he's just a Democrat stuck in the 80s.
1987 interview saying something similar:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkopCMjlrRw
It's possible that Harris just wasn't up to the task of making conversation with Rogan for three hours. If she declined for that reason, then that was her choice; indeed, Rogan himself thinks she opted not to do the interview because her team disliked the time commitment and the lack of editing.
For what it's worth, I think she made the right call. She wouldn't have won the election by going on JRE, and being exposed as vapid and unable to have a real conversation about anything would have been extremely embarrassing.
The progressive attitude toward the Joe Rogans's of the world is that they're uneducated, shallow thinkers who are easily swayed. What you don't want to demonstrate is that you're unable to operate on their level, that it's possible someone like Rogan might be able to engage in topics on a deeper level than your candidate. Even if I'm being generous enough to say that Kamala actually HAS more than broad platitudes, but as a politician she strategically avoids sharing too much, that's just not going to work out in a long-form interview. It was strategic and clever of her to stick to interviews from friendly media, just like it was strategic for Trump to face the press that's utterly hostile to him.
Pretty sure this; had she done the interview, her shellacking would have been worse.
The big mystery that everyone has to solve is, why did following the 2020 Biden playbook for 2024, not result in a Harris win?
Everyone, including the Biden campaign itself admitted they were hiding him in a basement because his dementia was advanced enough then that they didn't want him in front of cameras. So when they hid Kamala (and then eventually Walz) in the basement, why didn't it work this time? I have my theories, but it's something I've been wondering about. 'cause during the whole 2024 campaign, whenever someone barked that they were having to hide Kamala from the cameras, I kept quietly thinking to myself, "Don't get too confident, it worked for Biden in 2020".
I think it's simple: the failure of the Biden administration. Before Biden was elected, people were able to project onto his empty vessel their idea of how a Biden presidency would go, so they saw him more favorably. Kamala Harris was VP for 4 years, so she couldn't be the same empty vessel for positive projection, she WAS tethered to a presidential administration.
It wasn't a tenable position. People are really upset about the status quo, but it would have been terrible, optically, to go on the offensive against the man who essentially anointed her. She's stuck playing defense for Biden despite the unpopularity of what's going on in the country.
Also, Biden had a long (yet undeserved) reputation of competence and seriousness.
Harris lacked that. In spades. Nobody actually takes her seriously. That is why the biggest reason given for voting for her is her skin tone and having a vagina.
Those two things were the only reasons, and they were terrible reasons.
Well she was a DEI hire , Biden's words. She should never have been the nominate but other chose because it would have been chaos.
They messed up by having Biden run for a second term.
I also think plenty of peoples' heads were still spinning after "two weeks" and Joe was the "This will stop my head from spinning." option.
Keep in mind, the question isn't whether, e.g., censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story affected the outcome, but by how much; with Politifact declaring the "53% of voters" number to be untrue because TIPP insights, which was more accurate than many other polling organizations from 2016-2022, is "right-leaning".
The big mystery that everyone has to solve is, why did following the 2020 Biden playbook for 2024, not result in a Harris win?
Everyone, including the Biden campaign itself admitted they were hiding him in a basement because his dementia was advanced enough then that they didn’t want him in front of cameras.
That's not much of a mystery, Nancy Drew. First off, Biden at least still had enough moments of clarity that he was able to occasionally speak and answer questions in a serious and substantive manner, and always had the excuse of age for the times he seemed to wander a bit. And they just hid him when he was having his worst days. Harris has NEVER had the ability to sound intelligent, or even substantive. She couldn't even look good in the scripted "interviews" by solidly-in-the-tank-for-her propagandists. In fact the appearance that likely did her the most harm was the one on The View, when she given the, "Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?" question. That's a question that she and her handlers had to know was going to be asked at some point, even if she wasn't given the script ahead of time (and she almost certainly was), and should have been well prepared for it. Instead she sat there looking totally baffled by it, only to clumsily mutter just about the worst possible answer she could have come up with.
Because the Biden 2020 playbook had a scheme for 80m votes in there somewhere?
Among other reasons Covid was a thing in 2020 and was used as an excuse to avoid any public appearances. The Democrats claimed that mass public gatherings had to be curtailed because of Covid, that public appearances had to be curtailed because of Covid and that travel had to be curtailed because of Covid ( of course). 2024 did not have that excuse.
True.
But THIS coming out makes her look like the weakest person to ever run for President.
Is this the same bitch who had 92% of her staff quit? Now she is letting these staffers run everything? Most of these kids are functionally retarded, confusing having a degree on paper for having even a modicum of intellect.
It wasn't a good look when her staff cut the Fox's interview.
Trump and Vance went to hostile places.
Harris and Waltz didn't. If she could do that, how could she handle world leaders.
Yeah that sums it up well. She had already demonstrated that she was incapable of handling even a soft ball interview. Rogan put her on the spot by offering equal time and she did everything to dodge it. All of the excuses are just ass covering.
For what it’s worth, I think she made the right call. She wouldn’t have won the election by going on JRE, and being exposed as vapid and unable to have a real conversation about anything would have been extremely embarrassing.
That's what's known as "Closing the barn door after the horse."
I think you are right. She should have gone on Rogan since Trump and Vance did but made the correct call not too since it would have been a disaster. She was in a no win at that point. She tried doing a couple of podcasts but lets get real. "Call Her Daddy" isn't like 46,000,000 views on YouTube with another 30,000,000 listens on Spotify/Apple.
Prepared to do it, willing to do it, expecting to do it-- but not a goddamn ounce of "This is what I should (or shouldn't) do. A spineless stupid, poorly spoken amoral nut.
"The interview would have helped her counter the argument that she is stiff and impersonal—if, that is, she did a good enough job. In other words, Harris had much to gain from a successful appearance."
The problem was never that she was stiff and impersonal. That complaint is for awkward policy wonks like Hillary and DeSantis. Her problem is that she has the mental capacity of a sandcastle. And yes, a 3-hour interview would have revealed that.
She beat Fatass Donnie in the single debate they had. Of course it was mostly in style without enough substance. That was her big miss though.
I still don’t get how she wasn’t trained in the “ Are you better off now?” question.
Just start with “the 16 million people with jobs” are better off. Then cite the 80 million people with big gains in equities are. Then cite Covid survivors.
But No! She rambled on about an opportunity economy - which no one understood.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
FOAD, asshole.
"She beat Fatass Donnie in the single debate they had."
I know you don't believe that, because you're a troll, but it's funny that some people actually think this.
"She beat Fatass Donnie in the single debate they had."
She needed a memorable moment to give her SOME momentum.
None occurred. She got no boost from it. There were no memorable moments from her
Winning on paper means shit in politics. Winning in reality counts.
"I still don’t get how she wasn’t trained in the “ Are you better off now?” question."
She's incredibly stupid and lazy. It's why she memorized a few soundbites and used those, almost exclusively, for months.
"Just start with “the 16 million people with jobs” are better off."
Only people as dumb as you will think "Well, the Democrats shut down all of these jobs so them coming back means Democrats are the best!"
Most will say "Your party KILLED those jobs as is. Stopping the murder spree is not really making things better. Returning to status quo at best".
"Then cite the 80 million people with big gains in equities are. Then cite Covid survivors."
COVID, at its worst, was extremely survivable. The death rate did not change. There were incentives to list deaths as "from COVID", even if COVID did not cause the death. This has been explained, ad nauseum, for months. Your willful ignorance, while expected, is also duly noted.
And people who are doing great with equities? Sure means a lot when BUYING GROCERIES is a major strain and owning a house is a myopic pipe dream for most people.
Please, CONTINUE pimping the "Awesome" Biden economy.
She beat Fatass Donnie in the single debate they had.
And then made herself look like the vapid air-head she is every other time she opened her mouth in public.
Then cite Covid survivors.
Uhm....what?
The Covid hysteria and deaths are gone.
Therefore we are much better off today.
Add 16 million jobs and the wealth created. No question most of us are better off.
Why couldn’t she make that case?
Stupidity?
She isn’t very good at this.
I would have made Fatass cry every day.
The Covid hysteria and deaths are gone.
LOL! And you think Biden somehow made that happen?
Add 16 million jobs and the wealth created. No question most of us are better off.
Apparently you've had your head lodged firmly up your own ass for the past 4 years and are unfamiliar with the effects that inflation and high interest rates have had on working-class Americans.
The Covid hysteria and deaths are gone.
In other words, the beatings stopped and then morale improved. And for that… we should give them credit?
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
That's cute. 3 on 1 and you felt she won. No fact check. Debate about her earrings.
Why wouldn't see debate anywhere but ABC, which her best friend is a higher up?
She is sooooo brave. 16 million jobs, what numbers are you using? Have you looked at the revised ones? Last year revised down -834k. Oh that's right, you like to throw Covid in there after the blue states locked everyone down. Should we put in businesses that closed?
Yes Obama cut the deficit in half after he quadrupled it.
I'll give you credit Plug. You like to come on here to get made fun of. Nice work.
"And yes, a 3-hour interview would have revealed that."
She wouldn't have needed to talk politics the whole time, that's the other thing. They could have blown through a whole hour of Joe showing Kamala his favorite bear clips and all she would have had to do is go "Oh wow, really cool Joe."
...except she could not pull that off.
Acting like an actual human was impossible out of fear of explaining what she REALLY things.
Also revisionist history, the interview was set for an hour. Trump is the one that went over. Rogan let him. Trump was even late for a fundraiser. He let Vance too.
Harris didn't have to talk for 3 hours. I mean sure that would have answered like 2 questions.
2 hours, not one for Trump. Kamala was demanding not to exceed 1 hour.
"The news that Kamala Harris ditched Rogan because she was scared of progressive backlash just confirms my thesis that she was not ready for prime time. You can't negotiate with Putin or Kim Jong Un if you can't handle Joe Rogan and a 23 year old staffer."
The woman is not capable of doing the job.
I in no way believe that some staffers caused her to not do Rogan with her long history of being a terror to work for. Someone afraid of staffers doesn't have a 90% turnover in their office.
Harris bailed on the Rogan interview because he wouldn't ask pre-approved questions, kiss her ass or let her off the hook with tough questions.
Joe doesn’t really ask hard questions, but he also wouldn't be controlled either. Well, tough for you or I to answer, he may have asked what is a woman, which would have been a stumbling block.
"Regardless of any blowback, the campaign had made decision to pursue the interview and the Vice President was prepared to do it," she wrote.
That stream of salty, yellow liquid running down your left leg that smells vaguely of ammonia...
Rain.
Its because she isn't able to hold a conversation with Joe for 3 hours because she has been programmed for 2 minute sound bites pre-approved by media consultants. And when she does go off script, she rambles trying to remember the talking points. Blowback is 100% excuse.
"Is the Democratic Party tent big enough for Cheney but not for Rogan?"
Yes. They also don't have room for Glenn Greenwald, RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and about 76 million Trump voters.
They also don’t have room for Glenn Greenwald, RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and about 76 million Trump voters.
And quite possibly Bernie Sanders before long.
As someone who watched Sanders from his time as Mayor of Burlington and having met him a number of times at Veterans Functions in VT I know he is actually a decent enough person outside of his politics. What the Dems promised him or threatened him with I really don't know
I know there has been stuff about his wife: https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2017/07/21/unraveling-jane-sanders-burlington-college-legacy/486054001/
Given how far the Dems will go to win, I would not be surprised if they were holding that over his head. He probably also wants to avoid being compared to Ralph Nader.
The best line ever "It's possible that Harris just wasn't up to the task of making conversation with Rogan for three hours"
Haha, everyone knows she's couldn't. That's why she didn't. That's why she wanted a scripted 1 hr. Her Townhalls were scripted.
Come on Robby. We know you voted for her but you can stop defending her.
Come on, give Robby credit for getting out of bed long enough to write this.
If someone had told me years ago when I used to watch News Radio that the guy playing the goofy station electrician would end up being an American political king-maker I'd have told them they were nuts.
How about if we told you the guy playing the bombastic host on the Apprentice would be President?
how about the dimwit homewrecker from a canadian prep school being a senator or AG. that same dimwit thinking her full hard california retard shit would play on a national stage even after she got FULLY repudiated on THAT SAME national stage in the primaries? I KNOW, RIGHT? rogan is no king maker...he's just a dude that does excellent long form interviews. some folks can keep up with him. some can't. his steven tyler interview was a dumpster fire. turns out steven is a top flight rock and roller but a real halfwit
Off Topic - did everyone see that AOC changed to congresswoman without pronouns again on Twitter?
Too much winning at the moment
I still think of her/she as Congressnitwit. Or maybe Congresscunt.
she got re elected again so I guess someone likes her. Probably the screaming harpies on TikTok telling men they are not going to have sex with them and are cutting off their families over the election. AWFL's.
Will be better when it becomes Xcongresswoman.
No doubt each of us has dozens of acquaintances, perhaps even family members, who say "If only she had gone on Joe Rogan, I would have voted her. That was my number one issue. No Rogan, no vote."
Raise your hands if you're one of them.
Kamala knows she sucks at interviews, and her staffers didnt want her on a show whose audience mostly have penises.
Well, you never know where those things have been, and when they might go off.
FFS, the only thing that would have made Harris' chances worse than skipping Rogan was spending 3 hours with Rogan.
^ This
The truth is that Kamala Harris would not have benefited from a long format interview from any podcaster. She would have come across as unauthentic and plastic even more than she does in a 20 minute interview. Couple this with a live or unedited podcast, it would have been castrophic. She is not known for her ability to speak unscripted, but rather it is widely understood that this is a major flaw with her as a candidate.
To have her in any interview that is longer than an hour or unedited would have been foolish. Hopefully in the next election, unedited or live long format interview will become the standard and the era of the 30 second sound bite will diminish.
Love Trump or hate him, Trump come across as being authentic and more complex than what the corporate media portrays.
staffers, messaging, timing, scheduling...BLAH BLAH BLAH...TURNS OUT SHE IS A FUCKING DITZ AND ONLY STUPID LIBS WERE BLIND TO THAT. bottom line...she's just fucking stupid...a typical california politician