Podcast Hosts Blast Texas Senate Bid, Spark Uproar Over Dem Strategy

Paul Riverbank, 1/11/2026Podcast hosts' Texas Senate race skepticism ignites Democratic strategy debate and social media firestorm.

Rogers didn’t mince words. “Don’t waste your money sending to Jasmine Crockett. Do not do it,” he said, with the kind of bluntness that makes you look sideways at your morning coffee. Yang, sitting beside him—best known to millions for his sharp comic timing on *Saturday Night Live*—nodded in agreement. “I must agree,” was his reply. They argued, plain and simple, that Texas is still a steep mountain for Democrats, no matter the candidate.

The evidence Rogers gave felt personal rather than theoretical. He recalled pouring money into Sara Gideon’s Senate race in Maine, only to watch the expected “blue wave” recede with the tide. “If Beto O’Rourke couldn’t do it, Jasmine Crockett is not going to do it,” he said, an argument many have heard before whenever Texas comes up in Democratic circles. Yang didn’t disagree, adding a candid admission about donor fatigue: it’s hard enough to keep up with demands for money, without being pressured to back what some see as unwinnable bids.

But those comments lit up social media almost instantly—and not in the way the hosts intended. Quite a few listeners accused them of writing off a Black woman’s candidacy without due consideration. Some called their tone dismissive. Others, especially Texas Democrats, bristled at what they saw as out-of-state pessimism.

Rogers responded quickly. On Instagram, he acknowledged the backlash. “I hear the response and I am taking every bit of it to heart, I promise,” he wrote, going on to stress that his comments were tied to strategy, not to any lack of respect for Rep. Crockett. “I will be more thoughtful. I really do promise!” he added, clearly shaken by the intensity of the reaction.

Yang’s words, too, suggested a sober reckoning with the role of public figures in political commentary. “Should not have cursorily weighed in on this. Understanding the platform and will use it more responsibly,” he admitted—a bit of humility seldom seen in fast-paced media skirmishes.

If anything, this episode laid bare a rift among Democrats that’s been simmering for years: Is it smart to bet on every credible challenger, or better to reserve resources for the races considered actually winnable? Rogers summed up this tension on the air with an uneasy analogy. “Let’s not flop by putting up what everyone said they hated in the beginning, which is an establishment … California Democrat. It doesn’t work.” He was warning, indirectly, about elevating candidates familiar to party insiders but not, perhaps, to the wider electorate.

Yet Rogers pushed back as well. He insisted his skepticism wasn’t personal: “It’s nothing against her, it’s just that she is a politician, and that she is like, you know, very well-defined already.” His feeling? The party needs less-familiar faces who can surprise the opposition.

Both men’s remarks illustrate, perhaps better than any poll could, just how fraught the landscape is for Democrats in places like Texas. Their missteps also highlighted what happens when entertainers play pundit and critics play fact-checker, all in real time, under the glaring lights of social media.

But zooming out, what lingers after all the sound and fury is a deeper question about strategy and voice: Who gets to decide which races are worth fighting for, and whose calculations help or hinder the broader cause? When a comedian says “don’t donate,” does it sway anyone really, or does it just reveal the deep uncertainties within the party itself?

At a time when every dollar and every word seems to count, it’s clear: podcasts aren’t just for laughs. They’re a new frontier in shaping how donors, activists, and yes, even political journalists think about the pathway to power.

It’s remarkable how a few minutes on a podcast can spark days of political analysis, especially when the conversation veers into the high-stakes world of campaign strategy. That was the case on a recent episode of *Las Culturistas*, when hosts Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang dived headfirst into the debate over Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s Senate run in Texas.Rogers didn’t mince words. “Don’t waste your money sending to Jasmine Crockett. Do not do it,” he said, with the kind of bluntness that makes you look sideways at your morning coffee. Yang, sitting beside him—best known to millions for his sharp comic timing on *Saturday Night Live*—nodded in agreement. “I must agree,” was his reply. They argued, plain and simple, that Texas is still a steep mountain for Democrats, no matter the candidate.The evidence Rogers gave felt personal rather than theoretical. He recalled pouring money into Sara Gideon’s Senate race in Maine, only to watch the expected “blue wave” recede with the tide. “If Beto O’Rourke couldn’t do it, Jasmine Crockett is not going to do it,” he said, an argument many have heard before whenever Texas comes up in Democratic circles. Yang didn’t disagree, adding a candid admission about donor fatigue: it’s hard enough to keep up with demands for money, without being pressured to back what some see as unwinnable bids.But those comments lit up social media almost instantly—and not in the way the hosts intended. Quite a few listeners accused them of writing off a Black woman’s candidacy without due consideration. Some called their tone dismissive. Others, especially Texas Democrats, bristled at what they saw as out-of-state pessimism.Rogers responded quickly. On Instagram, he acknowledged the backlash. “I hear the response and I am taking every bit of it to heart, I promise,” he wrote, going on to stress that his comments were tied to strategy, not to any lack of respect for Rep. Crockett. “I will be more thoughtful. I really do promise!” he added, clearly shaken by the intensity of the reaction.Yang’s words, too, suggested a sober reckoning with the role of public figures in political commentary. “Should not have cursorily weighed in on this. Understanding the platform and will use it more responsibly,” he admitted—a bit of humility seldom seen in fast-paced media skirmishes.If anything, this episode laid bare a rift among Democrats that’s been simmering for years: Is it smart to bet on every credible challenger, or better to reserve resources for the races considered actually winnable? Rogers summed up this tension on the air with an uneasy analogy. “Let’s not flop by putting up what everyone said they hated in the beginning, which is an establishment … California Democrat. It doesn’t work.” He was warning, indirectly, about elevating candidates familiar to party insiders but not, perhaps, to the wider electorate.Yet Rogers pushed back as well. He insisted his skepticism wasn’t personal: “It’s nothing against her, it’s just that she is a politician, and that she is like, you know, very well-defined already.” His feeling? The party needs less-familiar faces who can surprise the opposition.Both men’s remarks illustrate, perhaps better than any poll could, just how fraught the landscape is for Democrats in places like Texas. Their missteps also highlighted what happens when entertainers play pundit and critics play fact-checker, all in real time, under the glaring lights of social media.But zooming out, what lingers after all the sound and fury is a deeper question about strategy and voice: Who gets to decide which races are worth fighting for, and whose calculations help or hinder the broader cause? When a comedian says “don’t donate,” does it sway anyone really, or does it just reveal the deep uncertainties within the party itself?At a time when every dollar and every word seems to count, it’s clear: podcasts aren’t just for laughs. They’re a new frontier in shaping how donors, activists, and yes, even political journalists think about the pathway to power.