In the wake of Donald trump's victory over Kamala Harris, the losing side is going through the typical analysis of what happened. There are, of course, a lot of opinions, many of them focusing on misogyny and racism, the typical response from progressives when they don't get their way. But among the less emotional and delusional analysts, there's a discussion about the changing landscape in the media. A lot of that discussion centers around Kamala Harris's decision to not appear on Joe Rogan's podcast and Donald Trump's decision to spend 3 hours with him.

Bernie Sanders believes that decision was significant in the final outcome. Many media and political pundits believe young men who were on the fence or not going to vote, changed their mind after listening to the episode. He believes that Harris could have at the very least, pulled a few of those young men away from Trump. Whether or not it would have been enough to change the outcome of the election is doubtful, but the overall point is podcasters might have more influence than the Democrat party realized.

As part of their proof, they point out that 49 million listeners tuned in to the Rogan/Trump interview, while 16,000,000 tuned in to the same podcast featuring JD Vance. Harris on the other hand appeared on a podcast entitled 'Call Her Daddy'. A move that garnered 1,000,000 listeners and cost the campaign $100,000 to build a set that they thought would be presentable. While the podcast is on video most listeners aren't watching; they are on a platform that is audio only. It's a move that shows the lack of understanding of the format on behalf of the Harris campaign.

I don't doubt that certain podcasts are going to be more influential as we go forward and candidates that ignore the reality will do so at their own peril. However, I don't think it was necessarily the medium that helped Donald Trump and hurt Kamala Harris. Trump spent three hours in a free form interview discussing whatever issue Joe brought up. There weren't any pre-interview conditions put in place by the Trump campaign. There is no doubt that Donald Trump does very well in these free form type of interviews. He is much more articulate and comes across in a very different way when you compare it with his rallies. I think he is much more relatable to the average person.

Kamala declined the invitation to appear on Joe Rogan's podcast because he would not agree to many of their demands. They wanted to limit the interview to about 30 minutes and told him that certain topics, such as marijuana use or her opinion on the legality thereof, were off limits. It is a move that is typical of most candidates from the Democrat party, something I have experienced over the last 20 years on a state and local level. If you don't agree to their conditions, they won't appear.

There is no doubt that Kamala is incapable of sitting for a three-hour interview. She struggled with the 60 Minutes interview for example. Even with selective editing by the producers and her campaign staff, that interview laid bare many of her weaknesses. Even if she believes in her solution to an issue, she has trouble articulating her vision or opinion. And we've all seen what happens when she is presented with a question or topic about which she is lacking in experience or knowledge. A three-hour interview would have completely destroyed any slim chance she had at winning over undecided voters.

But I do think there is validity to the opinion that the media landscape is changing. People like Joe Rogan, who would not be given a chance to have a show on more traditional media outlets are finding an audience through the podcast medium. It's no different than somebody having a show on Fox News or CNN. If the host and the topics that person discusses are appealing to listeners or viewers, the audience will find them.

Podcasting certainly gives a bit more freedom for personalities to be themselves, to discuss topics that mainstream media are uncomfortable in airing, and they are not necessarily subject to some of the time constraints that we find on traditional media outlets. Many of the podcasts that I listen to vary each day in length. If the host feels they don't have enough quality material to fill up an hour for example, they will stop at 45 minutes. If they have more material or the discussion takes them in a direction they didn't anticipate, they can easily extend the time.

It will certainly be interesting to watch the networks, especially those like MSNBC and CNN whose ratings are tanking, adapt to the changing landscape. CNN is already making noise that they are going to have to lose hundreds of people including some of their more high-profile on-air personalities. It is an undeniable truth of life—you must adapt or you will die.