Anonymous wrote:I would not vote for anyone claiming to be a serious contender for the leader of the free world who thought it would be a good idea to appear on 'Call Her Daddy'.

And yet you voted for a pussy grabber. Make it make sense. Oh, there’s a word for it…misogyny. Creating double standards.

Anonymous wrote:I would not vote for anyone claiming to be a serious contender for the leader of the free world who thought it would be a good idea to appear on 'Call Her Daddy'.

Well she was preaching to the choir about Roe v Wade

Harris is not good at unscripted discussions, hence the desire for a truncated one-hour interview and questions about edits. The campaign also wanted to control the interviews by having them on their turf, where they would have more control over lighting, wiring, editing. You don't have to worry about the latter if you have a candidate who converses well.

This was something of a tortoise and the hare situation.

Harris won the debate, thought she had the election in the bag, and avoided anything that carried the least bit of risk. She avoided any real interviews for weeks after the debate and then did only super friendly mainstream stuff in the final month.

Trump lose the debate and knew he had to do something unconventional to win. So he did three hours of Rogan and even spent an hour with Andrew Schulz, who was certainly not a friendly audience. The new media appearances garnered tens of millions of views and may well have turned the election.

Seriously? Trump got the same vote as he got in 2020. She needed the moderates to come out but they did not. Going on Rogan would not get a single vote.

Anonymous wrote:What went wrong? Their camps were in negotiations for weeks but Kamala didn’t want to go to Austin to do the show.

What’s her big problem with traveling? She also didn’t want to go travel to the studio for the Call her Daddy podcast.

Given she lost by very small margins in a few Blue Wall states, don’t you think a podcast with Joe would’ve helped her just a bit with young voters?

No anyone who listens to Rogan is a hardcore maga.

I would not vote for anyone claiming to be a serious contender for the leader of the free world who thought it would be a good idea to appear on 'Call Her Daddy'.

Anonymous wrote:The trolls have officially taken over DCUM.

Speaking of trolls…



He claims 5’8”…lolz

Rogan endorsed Sanders over Clinton and became an enemy of the state (to democrats).

Rogan himself said it was because he insisted she do it in Austin in his studio and set aside several hours for it. Her campaign basically confirmed this by saying they tried to schedule it but couldn't make timing work. She was already setting aside a lot of time for network interviews but for those interviewers were willing to work with her campaign schedule and come to her. Rogan wasn't. Recall Trump basically stood up a rally full of people to do Rogan (something that voters apparently were fine with but let's get real -- if Harris left thousands of people waiting for several hours to do a podcast interview, she'd be dragged relentlessly for it even by supporters.

The trolls have officially taken over DCUM.

I do think podcasts might have helped her, but they could have hurt her more. If it's true interviews had to be edited to make her look better, it may be an unedited podcast was too much of a risk.

Why would anyone go on his show? It’s so sad that he’s so popular. So low brow.

No, we've discussed this before. Joe Rogan's audience was not going to vote for her after he himself had Elon Musk on his show. He endorsed Trump. He wasn't ever going to endorse her.

What went wrong? Their camps were in negotiations for weeks but Kamala didn’t want to go to Austin to do the show.

What’s her big problem with traveling? She also didn’t want to go travel to the studio for the Call her Daddy podcast.

Given she lost by very small margins in a few Blue Wall states, don’t you think a podcast with Joe would’ve helped her just a bit with young voters?