Here’s a shocking truth: even the most outspoken voices can stumble when it comes to political commentary. Former 'Saturday Night Live' star Bowen Yang and his podcast co-host Matt Rogers recently found themselves in hot water after publicly questioning the viability of Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s Senate campaign—only to backtrack amid fierce online backlash. But here’s where it gets controversial: their initial critique wasn’t just a slip of the tongue; it sparked a broader debate about how progressives critique their own candidates. Let’s break it down.
Earlier this week, during their 'Las Culturistas' podcast, Rogers and Yang took aim at Crockett, a Democratic representative from Texas, who recently announced her bid for the Senate. Rogers, known for his sharp wit, didn’t hold back. He labeled Crockett—alongside California Gov. Gavin Newsom—as politicians who are ‘too self-focused,’ and bluntly advised listeners, ‘Don’t waste your money sending [donations] to Jasmine Crockett. Do not do it.’ Yang, in a rare moment of agreement, chimed in with a simple, ‘I must agree.’
But here’s the part most people miss: Rogers later clarified that his criticism wasn’t personal. Instead, he argued that Crockett’s political stance is too ‘well-defined’ to appeal to a broad Texas electorate. ‘She’s not going to win a Senate seat in Texas,’ he insisted, drawing a comparison to Beto O’Rourke’s failed bid. ‘If he couldn’t do it, Jasmine Crockett is not going to do it.’
The backlash was swift. Social media erupted with criticism, accusing the duo of undermining a fellow Democrat—especially one who has been a vocal critic of Trump and a rising star in progressive circles. Feeling the heat, both hosts walked back their comments. Rogers took to Instagram, promising to be ‘more thoughtful’ and emphasizing his respect for Crockett. ‘I just want us to win,’ he wrote, ‘and I will be better at finding ways to help.’ Yang echoed the sentiment, admitting he ‘should not have cursorily weighed in’ and pledging to use his platform more responsibly.
And this is where it gets even more intriguing: Their retraction highlights a larger dilemma in progressive circles. How do you critique a candidate’s electability without inadvertently sabotaging their campaign? Crockett’s Senate run has already faced skepticism from within the Democratic Party. One senior House Democrat anonymously told Axios, ‘She might win a primary, but she ain’t winning a general in Texas,’ while another called her decision ‘concerning for [swing] districts.’
So, here’s the question: Were Rogers and Yang wrong to voice their doubts, or were they simply stating the harsh realities of Texas politics? And more importantly, how should progressives balance constructive criticism with unity in an era where every word is scrutinized? Let us know in the comments—this is one debate that’s far from over.
