May 21, 2025 - 1:00pm
In their hapless quest to “find the next Joe Rogan,” Democrats are turning to donors.
A New York Times report on Democrats’ Rogan project claims “the party’s megadonors are being inundated with overtures to spend tens of millions of dollars to develop an army of left-leaning online influencers.” This is painfully misguided. Rogan’s influence is an organic creation with no partisan backing. It appeals to podcast listeners because it feels uncompromised by outside interests.
“At donor retreats and in pitch documents seen by The New York Times, liberal strategists are pushing the party’s rich backers to reopen their wallets for a cavalcade of projects to help Democrats, as the cliché now goes, ‘find the next Joe Rogan’,” the paper reported on Tuesday. “The proposals, the scope of which has not been previously reported, are meant to energize glum donors and persuade them that they can compete culturally with President Trump — if only they can throw enough money at the problem.”
As many have already suggested, Democrats’ best bet would actually be to recapture the support of Rogan, Andrew Schulz, Theo Von and other men with big audiences who gave Donald Trump a serious hearing last year. These are people whose power is predicated on cheap production, unfettered conversation, and genuine grassroots support.
The idea that Democrats can spend enough billionaire money to create a version of Joe Rogan with all of his appeal but speaking in Democratic talking points is laughable. It also reveals their utter disinterest in modifying the party’s policy offerings to meet men’s concerns. Why create a new Andrew Schulz when you have Bernie Sanders making compelling and friendly appearances on his show? (Sanders has also been on episodes with Rogan and Von.)
Just this week, Sanders — who is technically an Independent but caucuses with Democrats — sat for over an hour with Schulz. “I’m a lifelong Democrat,” the comedian said. “I feel like the Democratic Party completely removed the democratic process from its constituents. And I think they need to have some accountability of that.”
Sanders replied: “No argument here.” What other politician on the Left would say that?
Democrats would prefer to take a dark money short-cut because Sanders’s response to Schulz is obviously correct, but inconvenient for a paid Democratic influencer to point out. They want influence without authenticity. The problem is that younger people are much harder to trick with hackneyed propaganda because they’re natives to the new media environment.
Trump and JD Vance won Rogan over because they’re critics of their own party. Do Democratic officials and donors want to spend money paying influencers to talk trash about the party? If not, their paid influencers won’t go far because telling the ugly truth is the only way to build trust with people who rightfully feel like it’s been hidden from them.
The Democrat-friendly influence of Hollywood and cable news is waning because institutional trust is waning. That isn’t to say it’s impossible for influencers who vote Democrat to start competing with Rogan. It’s to say that it’s impossible for Democratic influencers to compete with Rogan. The distinction is between people who believe Democrats are imperfect but better than Republicans, and people who are being paid by party operatives and donors to generate partisan propaganda.
Sanders is proof the former can succeed. The party’s disinterest in embracing his appeal is proof it won’t be able to astroturf new programming that actually changes hearts and minds.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe