Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang have retracted their comments about this year’s U.S. Senate race in Texas after advising listeners not to “waste” donations to Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s campaign.
Gay comics spoke out on January 7th. episode their Las Culturistas The podcast features left-wing politicians, including California Governor Gavin Newsom and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in wide-ranging discussions about the direction of the Democratic Party, which they describe as increasingly rudderless heading into the 2028 presidential election.
Mr. Rogers argued that Mr. Newsom was not the best candidate to help Democrats retake the White House in 2028, and took aim at his repeated trolls of President Trump to raise his national profile and his decision to endorse right-wing activists on his personal podcast, taking aim at the governor.
Next, Rogers Note Crockett, who is running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican Sen. John Cornyn. The Dallas-area congressman has become a rising star in some Democratic circles thanks to viral footage of him unabashedly criticizing Republican politicians.
“Don’t waste your money sending money to Jasmine Crockett,” Rogers said. “Please stop. Please stop. It’s a waste of money.”
“I have to agree,” Yang replied.
Rogers said Crockett can’t win in Texas.
“If Beto O’Rourke can’t do it, Jasmine Crockett won’t be able to do it,” Rogers said, referring to the former El Paso-area lawmaker who came within two points of defeating Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018. stand up. ”
Mr. Rogers also said that Mr. Crockett’s chief opponent, the Texas congressman, james talarico (R-Austin), it will be difficult for Republicans to demonize Mr. Talarico, citing his willingness to speak openly about his Christian faith and advocate for politics rooted in progressiveism. Christianity.
In making this argument, Rogers revealed a shaky understanding of evangelical Christianity, why evangelical voters typically oppose Democratic candidates, and how Talarico’s religious views actually resonate with Texas voters, providing less political analysis and more a satirical depiction of how secular liberals view religious voters.
While Rodgers and Yang’s criticism of Newsom and the broader Democratic Party is not without merit, the hosts came under fire for offering a shallow and underdeveloped view of electoral politics.
The differences between Mr. Crockett and Mr. Talarico, who could both be broadly characterized as liberals, are rooted less in ideology than in conflicting personalities, presentations, and theories of how to win elections.
Mr. Crockett and Mr. Tallarico are employing two different and equally valid theories for winning elections, but it remains unclear whether either approach will be successful in Texas.
Mr. Crockett’s campaign is focused on energizing nontraditional voters and increasing turnout among a broad left-to-center-left coalition that typically supports Democrats. Mr. Talarico, by contrast, appears to be pursuing a strategy of persuasion, aiming to mobilize rare voters while appealing to unstable voters and independents who may be dissatisfied with Republican politicians, including Mr. Trump.
Both Crockett and Talarico face tough odds in the Texas general election, where Democrats have struggled for years to build a winning coalition across the state. Even within the Texas Democratic Party, opinion is divided between those who think Crockett’s confrontational style could energize infrequent and disaffected voters and those who worry the same traits could limit her appeal in the conservative-leaning state.
Crockett’s most vocal supporters argue that Rodgers and Yang’s cancellation of her candidacy touches on the third rail of identity-based politics, interpreting the comments as an attempt to disqualify Crockett on the basis of gender and race. This accusation has proven particularly powerful given the limited ideological distance between Mr. Crockett and Mr. Talarico and the fact that the two Democrats have yet to face each other in a debate where their policy differences could be more clearly defined.
Crockett defenders also criticize what they describe as the double standards of white liberals, who they see as giving white male Democrats more latitude in defining the political viability of a U.S. Senate seat.
“[Crockett] The definition is not very clear,” says transgender author hope giselle became a hot topic on Instagram video Reply to Rogers and Yang. “She is too hard to ignore, too capable, and too black in public. She is too ambitious but too feminine, and too articulate about power, a clarity that frightens those who benefit from living in a fog. Because somehow ‘definition’ only matters when the candidate is a black woman or a black person in general.”
At least one popular post on X claimed that Rodgers and Yang’s comments encouraged users to donate to Crockett’s campaign.
“I just donated to @JasmineForUS’s Senate campaign. I’m inspired by her fearlessness, unselfishness, intelligence, and dedication to this shitty country. You should too,” the user wrote. “Also, fuck Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang.”
Pro-Crockett commenters flooded Rogers’ Instagram account, posting Crockett memes and GIFs on unrelated posts and criticizing Rogers for rejecting his candidacy for Congress.
Rogers later announced: apology on his Instagram story.
“Hey everyone. I’ll listen to the responses and take them all to heart, I promise,” he wrote. “Transparency and candor are important to me, especially on my podcast. I’m a very progressive person who genuinely cares about winning elections, but my wording wasn’t accurate. I have great respect and admiration for Congressman Crockett, but I’m disappointed that my words suggested otherwise. I just want us to win, and I’m going to find better ways to help.”
Yang reposted Rogers’ message on his Instagram Story, adding, “I shouldn’t have taken this so lightly. I’m going to understand my platform and use it more responsibly.”
Source: Metro Weekly – www.metroweekly.com
