![\"\"](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F141725dc-10c1-45ab-9be5-657757771e57_1200x800.jpeg\")
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/a> If you\u2019re worried about the future of the Democratic Party and you\u2019ve spent some time on the Internet, chances are you\u2019ve heard this argument:<\/span> Democrats need their own Joe Rogan.<\/em><\/p>\n Officials within the Democratic Party seem to share that belief, and have reportedly <\/span>asked mega-donors to pour tens of millions of dollars<\/a> into boosting liberal content creators who might replicate Rogan\u2019s reach and influence. The obvious flaw in this strategy is that the voters drifting from the Democratic Party are mostly lower-information voters, and, in the case of Rogan\u2019s audience, far more likely to consume brain pills than progressive messaging.<\/span><\/p>\n So Democrats aren\u2019t going to reach these people by pumping millions of dollars into the pockets of already-successful influencers like Brian Tyler Cohen. Because, as anyone who\u2019s ever talked about politics at a party knows, there\u2019s nothing politically apathetic people hate more than listening to someone talk about politics. That said, it <\/span>would<\/em> be nice to have a new-media megapersonality willing to slip a little liberalism into the mix without making it feel like homework. This person wouldn\u2019t be paid to churn out propaganda. But ahead of the 2026 midterms and 2028 election, they could spotlight issues that favor Democrats\u2014perhaps by interviewing NIH scientists whose promising cancer research got obliterated, or small business owners crushed by tariffs.<\/span><\/p>\n The only question is, who should this person be?<\/p>\n Each contestant below has been ranked by three criteria:<\/p>\n Audience: <\/strong>Two things to consider here. Is the contestant\u2019s audience large? And is it full of persuadable or apolitical voters\u2014the kind that Democrats seem to be losing? A <\/span>recent survey<\/a> found that the majority of Rogan\u2019s audience is 18-34, nearly 80 percent male, and 35 percent independent (with the remainder nearly evenly split between the two major parties). The Democratic Joe Rogan needs an audience that bears some resemblance to this.<\/span><\/p>\n Ability (to be a Democratic sleeper agent): <\/strong>Does the audience assume the contestant is already liberal? Or might they get away with slipping innocuous pro-Democratic messaging like \u201cThose Medicaid work requirements seem kinda evil\u201d or \u201cWhy\u2019d Trump tax bananas, we can\u2019t grow those in Detroit,\u201d into their content without sounding like Chris Hayes? (No offense, Chris Hayes, but you\u2019re not winning over swing voters.)<\/span><\/p>\n Willingness (to get on board): <\/strong>In theory, the ideal Democratic Joe Rogan is Joe Rogan. But that ship seems to have sailed right into Mar-a-Lago harbor. So we need to assess whether these candidates actually would want the job.<\/span><\/p>\n Now, without further ado\u2026 the candidates!<\/p>\n Join today!<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Bill Simmons: <\/strong>The Sports Guy<\/em><\/p>\n Audience<\/strong>: <\/strong><\/em>6\/10<\/strong><\/p>\n Ability<\/strong>: 7\/10<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Willingness:<\/strong> 6\/10<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n <\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n The case for:<\/strong> To everyone who\u2019s dropped a great sports take into their group chat and thought, for one happy moment, \u201cmaybe I can make a career of this!\u201d: You should be jealous of Simmons.<\/span><\/p>\n The self-proclaimed \u201cSports Guy\u201d actually pulled it off. He turned that exact delusion into a job, then turned the job into a media empire. Countless men in their 20s and 30s (myself included) owe their long-abandoned sports blogspots to him. And since the rise of online sports betting, countless more now recognize Simmons as the face of the gambling company FanDuel.<\/p>\n If Bill started talking politics a bit more on his incredibly popular tri-weekly podcast, would it actually move some votes? Well, guys like sports. Guys like sports gambling. So guys probably trust Bill Simmons, right?<\/p>\n The case against: <\/strong>According to the analytics firm <\/span>Lower Street Advertising<\/a>, Simmons\u2019 podcast audience skews heavily toward white men in their early thirties who are into sports, movies, and prestige TV. This is an audience that I like to think of as Cosmopolitan Dudes. They love classic movies from the 90s, salivate over HBO\u2019s latest prestige TV shows, and are generally college-educated with high incomes.<\/span><\/p>\n In other words, they\u2019re libs.<\/p>\n There are surely more Trump supporters in Simmons\u2019s audience than Rachel Maddow\u2019s. But probably not enough to compete with Rogan for influence. Put another way: If you\u2019re willing to listen to a three hour multi-part podcast breaking down Severance, you\u2019re probably not a Trump supporter.<\/p>\n Leave a comment<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Andrew Huberman: <\/strong>Internet Health Guy<\/em><\/p>\n Audience:<\/strong> <\/strong><\/em>8\/10<\/strong><\/p>\n Capacity<\/strong>: 9\/10<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Willingness:<\/strong> 3\/10<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n <\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n The case for: <\/strong>A few years ago, I got a call from a friend. He\u2019d been following the morning routine of health influencer Andrew Huberman\u2014hydrate, no phone, no caffeine, get direct sunlight\u2014and it had changed his life. To be specific, he scorched his eyes by staring too directly at the sun<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n I haven\u2019t seen that guy in a while. But every time I look at the sun (indirectly) or see an Andrew Huberman video, I think about how my friend nearly fried his retinas on the advice of the internet\u2019s most prominent health guru. To be clear, this was a misinterpretation of Huberman\u2019s advice to get \u201cmorning sunlight.\u201d But it underscores how devoted the Huberman audience is, because my friend is not an isolated case. The \u201c<\/span>Huberman Husband Phenomenon<\/a>\u201d has turned millions of men in their 20s, 30s, and 40s into a legion of life-hackers and health fanatics. And in today\u2019s political climate, that\u2019s a demographic that can swing elections.<\/span><\/p>\n Now, imagine if he told his 6.5 million youtube subscribers that the Republican Party was anti-health: that they kicked ten million people off their health insurance, defunded research into life-saving and life-enhancing treatments, <\/span>and<\/em>, perhaps worst of all, appointed a seed-oil lobbyist to be Chief of Staff at the Department of Agriculture.<\/span><\/p>\n The case against: <\/strong>Huberman seemingly wouldn\u2019t want the assignment. He\u2019s promoted Elon Musk and other pro-Trump figures in the past and has openly discussed his disinterest in <\/span>politics<\/a>. Make no mistake, he\u2019s not a MAHA nut, but he\u2019s also conspicuously silent about the anti-vaccine and anti-science movement that has overtaken the Republican Party.<\/span><\/p>\n I wish that weren\u2019t the case! But think about what Michael Jordan said when asked why he didn\u2019t weigh in on politics: \u201c<\/span>Republicans buy sneakers too<\/em>.\u201d Andrew Huberman seems to be making a similar business decision, \u201c<\/span>Republicans <\/span>buy unregulated supplements, too<\/a>.\u201d <\/span><\/em>More than most, maybe\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n Share<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Dawn Staley: <\/strong>Legendary Women\u2019s College Basketball Coach<\/em><\/p>\n Audience<\/strong>: <\/strong><\/em>6\/10<\/strong><\/p>\n Capacity:<\/strong> 5\/10<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Willingness:<\/strong> 4\/10<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n <\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n The case for: <\/strong>Listen, some might dismiss this pick on the grounds that a Rogan-like audience probably wouldn\u2019t tune into women\u2019s college basketball. And fair enough. The sport\u2019s viewership ratings might be up 41 percent in the past two years, but the audience overlap is probably minimal.<\/span><\/p>\n Still, I think there\u2019s a strong case for the South Carolina women\u2019s basketball coach. First off, Staley\u2019s probably the only coach in basketball history who is more intimidating than the players on the court. She grew up in the projects of North Philly and built a career as one of the greatest college coaches of all time. She\u2019s a proven winner, and watching her bark at referees is both hilarious and, I imagine, quite terrifying from the receiving end.<\/p>\n Beyond the sidelines, she brings a lot to the table: Openly religious, southern, and grounded in a way that betrays none of the cosmopolitan stench of so many national Democrats. I went back and listened to some episodes of her now-defunct podcast, where she interviewed everyone from Allen Iverson to U.S. Army General Martin Dempsey. That\u2019s Rogan-level range.<\/p>\n The case against: <\/strong>The biggest challenge here is that Staley has already expressed support for Kamala Harris and spoken out in favor of various political causes. That\u2019s a problem if she\u2019s going to win trust from non-political listeners or viewers. It isn\u2019t an impossible bar to clear, but it does mean she\u2019ll ll need to drop some heterodox takes to prove her independent bonafides.<\/span><\/p>\n The second big issue is that Staley\u2019s still a full-time coach, and, outside of press conferences, she doesn\u2019t do much public-facing media. If she were going to make a real run at this, she\u2019d probably need to retire and get into the takes game full time. But with three national championships under her belt, she\u2019s got nothing left to prove in basketball. Someone just needs to make the pitch: it\u2019s time to train that fire on the biggest opponent in America, the Republican Party.<\/p>\n Luke Nichols: <\/strong> The Outdoor Boy<\/em><\/p>\n Audience: 9\/10<\/strong><\/p>\n Capacity: 10\/10<\/strong><\/p>\n Willingness: 4\/10<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n The Case For<\/strong>: Nichols has built an audience of 12 million YouTube subscribers doing things like hiking 22 miles through a blizzard without a tent, camping with coyotes, and digging snow fortresses by hand. There\u2019s a sizable population of politically disaffected men on the internet who fetishize such survivalist adventures, and Nichols is their patron saint.<\/span><\/p>\n But the Outdoor Boy is much more than that. Nichols also went to law school at George Mason and edited BYU\u2019s political science journal, which means he\u2019s a Mormon outdoorsman with a quiet interest in politics\u2014a Never Trump Sleeper Agent, if you will.<\/p>\n Imagine if he took Donald Trump, Jr., on one of his adventures, just to see how the trust fund outdoorsman performed in real conditions. He could casually ask him why his dad is rolling back clean water protections while they dig a snow fort in an Alaskan blizzard.<\/p>\n The Case Against: <\/strong>Unfortunately, Nichols decided to shutter his outdoor channel two weeks ago, citing his desire to step out of the limelight and spend more time with his family. That doesn\u2019t really sound like someone who\u2019s willing to boost his profile and become a <\/span>sub rosa<\/em> political influencer.<\/span><\/p>\n BUT, in his <\/span>goodbye video<\/a> he specifically said he\u2019d stop making videos \u201cfor a while.\u201d Not permanently? You\u2019re telling me there\u2019s a chance? Democrats need to keep this guy\u2019s file on hand until he\u2019s ready to make his internet comeback.<\/span><\/p>\n Nathan Fielder: <\/strong>Weirdo<\/em><\/p>\n <\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n Audience: <\/strong><\/em>4\/10<\/strong><\/p>\n Capacity: 4\/10<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Willingness: 6\/10<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The case for: <\/strong>This is a strange candidate. Fielder is a deeply unsettling person. He doesn\u2019t have a podcast, he barely posts online, and he has morgue-owner energy. But thanks to <\/span>The Rehearsal<\/em>, his gloriously deranged HBO series, he\u2019s wormed further into American pop culture than anyone might have reasonably predicted. And depending on how you interpret Season 2, and his <\/span>subsequent appearances on CNN<\/a>, he might actually be on track to reform the Federal Aviation Administration. One might even call him a crusading government reformer. Like Ralph Nader, but weirder.<\/span><\/p>\n If you haven\u2019t watched the show, here\u2019s the gist: Fielder builds absurdly elaborate sets to simulate real-life social interactions. The scenarios he creates are surreal, uncomfortable, and often expose bizarre contradictions in people\u2019s behavior. That\u2019s the key: I don\u2019t know about you, but I can\u2019t think of anything more bizarre and contradictory than the Republican Party.<\/p>\n Comedy rarely moves voters (SNL hasn\u2019t persuaded anyone since <\/span>Gerald Ford fell down the stairs<\/a>). But get Fielder in a room with Matt Walsh, Mencius Moldbug, Bronze Age Pervert, and the thought-leaders <\/span>powering the intellectual engine<\/a> of the GOP and hit record. America deserves to see what happens.<\/span><\/p>\n The case against: <\/strong>Even if Fielder were able to pull off a high-level stunt at the expense of the GOP, the right audience still might not see it. That\u2019s because, at his core, he\u2019s an indie comedian who entertains liberals. YouTube clips of his show reach tens of millions of views, as do reels on TikTok and Instagram, so his work probably trickles into the consciousness of people who don\u2019t have HBO subscriptions. But for him to impart any durable political truths to an apolitical audience, he\u2019d need to pull off a really epic stunt.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s why Fielder\u2019s the worst contestant in these games. I\u2019d still love to see him create a season of television dedicated to exposing the weirdness and contradictions of the Republican Party. But, at the risk of stereotyping, I suspect his humor and satirical styles will be lost on the average swing voter.<\/p>\n<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/picture><\/div>\n