Celebrity Podcasters Slam Texas Dem, Spark Backlash and Surprise Donor Surge

Paul Riverbank, 1/11/2026Pop culture podcasters spark Texas Democratic uproar—fueling backlash, surprise donations, and strategic debate.

During a recent podcast episode, what started as banter quickly swerved into pointed commentary on Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s upstart Senate campaign. Rogers didn’t just suggest hesitancy about donating—he flat-out told listeners not to bother supporting Crockett financially. “Don’t waste your money sending to Jasmine Crockett. Do not do it,” he admonished. Yang, who’s perhaps better known for sketch comedy than campaign strategy, echoed the sentiment without missing a beat.

The core of their skepticism? Rogers looked squarely at recent, failed attempts by Democrats to make headway in sprawling, ruby-red Texas. “If Beto O’Rourke couldn’t do it, Jasmine Crockett is not going to do it,” he said, exasperation creeping in. To Rogers, a pattern has emerged: well-funded, well-known Democrats keep falling short. He cast Crockett as another “well-defined” figure, the kind of candidate he feels the Democrats should avoid putting forward if they want to shake up their prospects statewide.

But their criticism didn’t stop at dissecting one campaign. The conversation veered off, touching raw nerves about the party’s tendency to stick with what, in their minds, amounts to a stale formula. Both hosts mused about the allure of less conventional, not-yet-pigeonholed candidates, especially as Democratic leadership looks ahead to 2028. Rogers leveled a warning against nominating someone like Gavin Newsom—an “establishment” figure he finds uninspiring. Their discussion even drifted back to 2016, with Yang musing about his regrets over being, as he put it, a “Hillary stan.”

Here’s the twist: While the tone was, in context, breezy and spontaneous, their remarks quickly left the podcast echo chamber. On social media, listeners—some of them longtime fans—pushed back hard. Many felt the critique didn’t just underestimate Crockett; it inadvertently shamed people eager to send money to embattled Democrats, labeling donations to tough races as foolish. There’s irony in what happened next. The mini-controversy actually stoked sympathy: one viral post claimed the discussion compelled a listener to donate to Crockett, not avoid her.

Realizing the controversy had snowballed, both Rogers and Yang tried to dial it back. Rogers fired off a reflective Instagram story, promising to rethink his approach. “I hear the response and am taking every bit of it to heart. I will be more thoughtful. I really do promise!” he wrote. He strove for transparency, clarifying that he valued candor and progress but regretted his phrasing sounded harsher than intended. Yang, using his own platform, amplified the message with a dose of humility: “Should not have cursorily weighed in on this. Understanding the platform and will use it more responsibly.” For those waiting for a formal apology, that didn’t come—but both acknowledged Crockett deserved more respect than their off-the-cuff remarks suggested.

The episode is a snapshot of a much broader, recurring tension within Democratic circles: the struggle to balance hard-nosed pragmatism (where best to send precious dollars) with the energy and hope that grassroots donors bring to the table. Rogers referenced his own regrets over sending “a ton of money” to Sara Gideon, the Maine Senate candidate who came up short despite big hype—a personal anecdote that was equal parts cautionary tale and therapy confession. Yang chimed in that money, especially these days, “is hard enough to come by,” so why not be selective?

Depending on your vantage point, their comments were either a sobering dose of reality or the sort of discouragement that saps movement energy. And here’s where things spin out, beyond this one episode: With donating as easy as clicking a button and feedback loops moving at warp speed on platforms like X, it’s no longer just party insiders drawing the map of “winnable” races. The definition is contested, messy, often deeply personal.

What ends up settling in the wake of these micro-scandals isn’t always resentment. Sometimes, it’s a brief spike in online donations—or a heated family dinner debate about whether any race is unwinnable “until it isn’t.” One thing’s clear: Voices that carry weight in pop culture now shape not only thought but the bottom lines of campaigns.

In the end, the Crockett flap might fade as fast as it appeared, but the underlying question endures: Can Democrats enthuse their base about moonshot races without running aground on the reefs of cynicism? Or, to flip the question: Is a little realism such a bad thing when money and attention are on the line? If this saga taught us anything, it’s that in the high-speed, high-stakes world of modern campaigning, what starts as unscripted banter can send ripples much further than hosts—celebrity or otherwise—ever imagine.

The latest flare-up in the ongoing tug-of-war inside progressive circles wasn’t sparked by politicians or party strategists, but by two pop culture voices whose reach goes beyond cable news hits: Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, the duo behind the candid Las Culturistas podcast. Their recent wade into the already-choppy waters of Texas Democratic politics set off a chain reaction they probably didn’t see coming.During a recent podcast episode, what started as banter quickly swerved into pointed commentary on Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s upstart Senate campaign. Rogers didn’t just suggest hesitancy about donating—he flat-out told listeners not to bother supporting Crockett financially. “Don’t waste your money sending to Jasmine Crockett. Do not do it,” he admonished. Yang, who’s perhaps better known for sketch comedy than campaign strategy, echoed the sentiment without missing a beat.The core of their skepticism? Rogers looked squarely at recent, failed attempts by Democrats to make headway in sprawling, ruby-red Texas. “If Beto O’Rourke couldn’t do it, Jasmine Crockett is not going to do it,” he said, exasperation creeping in. To Rogers, a pattern has emerged: well-funded, well-known Democrats keep falling short. He cast Crockett as another “well-defined” figure, the kind of candidate he feels the Democrats should avoid putting forward if they want to shake up their prospects statewide.But their criticism didn’t stop at dissecting one campaign. The conversation veered off, touching raw nerves about the party’s tendency to stick with what, in their minds, amounts to a stale formula. Both hosts mused about the allure of less conventional, not-yet-pigeonholed candidates, especially as Democratic leadership looks ahead to 2028. Rogers leveled a warning against nominating someone like Gavin Newsom—an “establishment” figure he finds uninspiring. Their discussion even drifted back to 2016, with Yang musing about his regrets over being, as he put it, a “Hillary stan.”Here’s the twist: While the tone was, in context, breezy and spontaneous, their remarks quickly left the podcast echo chamber. On social media, listeners—some of them longtime fans—pushed back hard. Many felt the critique didn’t just underestimate Crockett; it inadvertently shamed people eager to send money to embattled Democrats, labeling donations to tough races as foolish. There’s irony in what happened next. The mini-controversy actually stoked sympathy: one viral post claimed the discussion compelled a listener to donate to Crockett, not avoid her.Realizing the controversy had snowballed, both Rogers and Yang tried to dial it back. Rogers fired off a reflective Instagram story, promising to rethink his approach. “I hear the response and am taking every bit of it to heart. I will be more thoughtful. I really do promise!” he wrote. He strove for transparency, clarifying that he valued candor and progress but regretted his phrasing sounded harsher than intended. Yang, using his own platform, amplified the message with a dose of humility: “Should not have cursorily weighed in on this. Understanding the platform and will use it more responsibly.” For those waiting for a formal apology, that didn’t come—but both acknowledged Crockett deserved more respect than their off-the-cuff remarks suggested.The episode is a snapshot of a much broader, recurring tension within Democratic circles: the struggle to balance hard-nosed pragmatism (where best to send precious dollars) with the energy and hope that grassroots donors bring to the table. Rogers referenced his own regrets over sending “a ton of money” to Sara Gideon, the Maine Senate candidate who came up short despite big hype—a personal anecdote that was equal parts cautionary tale and therapy confession. Yang chimed in that money, especially these days, “is hard enough to come by,” so why not be selective?Depending on your vantage point, their comments were either a sobering dose of reality or the sort of discouragement that saps movement energy. And here’s where things spin out, beyond this one episode: With donating as easy as clicking a button and feedback loops moving at warp speed on platforms like X, it’s no longer just party insiders drawing the map of “winnable” races. The definition is contested, messy, often deeply personal.What ends up settling in the wake of these micro-scandals isn’t always resentment. Sometimes, it’s a brief spike in online donations—or a heated family dinner debate about whether any race is unwinnable “until it isn’t.” One thing’s clear: Voices that carry weight in pop culture now shape not only thought but the bottom lines of campaigns.In the end, the Crockett flap might fade as fast as it appeared, but the underlying question endures: Can Democrats enthuse their base about moonshot races without running aground on the reefs of cynicism? Or, to flip the question: Is a little realism such a bad thing when money and attention are on the line? If this saga taught us anything, it’s that in the high-speed, high-stakes world of modern campaigning, what starts as unscripted banter can send ripples much further than hosts—celebrity or otherwise—ever imagine.