Summary

The “Rogansphere,” a sprawling ecosystem of podcasts and online shows led by figures like Joe Rogan, has become a powerful cultural force for younger audiences, functioning as a “Fox News for the young.”

With its mix of anti-establishment rhetoric, distrust of Democrats, and casual conversations blending left-leaning and conservative ideas, it normalizes figures like Donald Trump for a disillusioned, lonely audience—particularly young men.

Democrats risk underestimating its influence, as this ecosystem fosters deep listener loyalty and has contributed to a significant shift in young male voters toward Trump.

  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yes because insulting the voter base is the way to win their votes. This is why we keep fucking losing. Instead of adjusting we call the voters lonely and stupid. Sounds like a sure fire way to win on the fence voters.

    This article is essentially saying anyone that listens to these shows is the problem.

    • NastyNative@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      They killed their chance with Sanders who had a better approval rate than Hillary and could have won that election. Thats when i realized the democratic party is GARBAGE.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        For me it was when they skipped their primary election, then adopted the slogan “Democracy is on the ballot”.

        Like damn that is insulting. I’ve voted Democrat in every election in my life until this one, but I will not put up with gaslighting from anyone no matter how long our history.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      This article is essentially saying anyone that listens to these shows is the problem.

      Fascists are usually the problem, yea

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      This, many people who voted for Trump weren’t going to vote at all until Hillary called them deplorable.

      • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        She didn’t. If they weren’t voting for trump she didn’t call them deplorable. Also, she was referring to only a subset of trump voters. She said you could separate trump supporters into two groups, one was a basket of deplorables. They seem fine with "murderers rapist and thieves and some I assume are good people ", but “there are neo nazis supporting this man, we need to reach the non nei nazis on his side” is too far.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Regardless, the rhetoric is aggressive and alienating, the opposite of what a candidate who wants votes should be.

          • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I would agree that it was aggressive and alienating. Another issue is that it was extremely easy to take out of context, which it widely has been. It’s so it of context that people who didn’t know the context proudly labeled themselves as “deplorable” showing solidarity with David Duke. Never realizing that’s who the original context was about. But it’s hard to speak in a way that will never be taken out of context. “You didn’t build that” for another example.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Did Hilary ever actually clear up the ambiguity though or did we have to give her the benefit of the doubt to a degree?

              I dont quite understand what she had to gain from making the statement even if it was said different. She had a strange way of carrying herself thats for sure.

                • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Okay well how about I say I want to murder someone and later take it back and say I only want to murder their bad half. It still sounds sorta like I feel the same either way right?

                  You can’t say words like clearly unless you know her intent. She was happy to say it at the time, she liked the reaction in the room. Saying later she regretted it could just be an acknowledgement that it caused more trouble than it was worth.

                  Conversely, she could say, “It was wrong for me to call any group of americans deplorables.” If she wanted to be a leader, take responsibility for your mistakes. Using clever words to make it sound like you might have maybe made a mistake but not really, and then acting like the victim of the story isnt a good look.

                  Edit: after reading the quote, it was delivered as a joke, very similar to the Puerto Rico joke that got bipartisan condemnation in this election.

    • droporain@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Lol you aren’t ever going to win that voter base, the fact that you keep trying is why you keep losing.