Comments on: Annals of Improbable Research

By: Chrissy

Chrissy — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:03:42 +0000

What are the statistics on how many Republican candidates have appeared on the show compared to Democrats?

By: liza

liza — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:42:50 +0000

OMG! This one is sooooo getting an igNoble award. Mark my words!

By: James Fowler

James Fowler — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:36:10 +0000

The data is in a table in the paper: http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/colbert_bump.pdf

By: Austin

Austin — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:59:48 +0000

Well, and then there is Ron Paul.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:34:29 +0000

I can has data? Names? Day appeared on show? K thx!

By: Rob

Rob — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:15:40 +0000

Sitting representatives featured on Better Know a District (and their opponents in upcoming elections, if the sitting representative refused to be interviewed), no matter what party, were almost all re-elected in the following election (and the challenger who appeared were elect), at least according to Colbert. The episode that aired on the night of the midterm elections in 2006 went into detail about this, so if people want to look into it, I’m sure the video’s on Comedy Central’s website.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:42:59 +0000

I like Colbert as much as the next guy (I’ve been listening to his audiobook while travelling, actually), but let’s look at this empirically. There’s little to draw a causality here. If you look, the candidates are rising out of the dip before they appear on the show. This indicates that there’s a total shift in PC tatics which likely INCLUDES the Colbert Report appearance, but is not limited to it, that’s responsible for the bump.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:06:26 +0000

In response to #2 “a”:

Every one who goes on his show knows full well what kind of show it is, and that it’s not a question of ‘if’ they’ll make a fool of themselves. The show is edited to do so, and to portray the most ‘truthiness’ for every viewing second.

I just hope that when an Oregonian is featured, we don’t make a fool of ourselves.

Wait…

By: phil

phil — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:57:42 +0000

John Hall (NY-19) was interviewed on Better Know a District when he was still a candidate.

By: Kiran

Kiran — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:46:37 +0000

It’s important to remember that all representatives intending to run for re-election are also “political candidates.” Their political turnaround is 2 years which effectively means they’re running for re-election on their first day of office.

By: Arthur

Arthur — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:52:36 +0000

Surely the control should be pols or candidates who appeared on shows with equivalent ratings to Me Colbert esteemed vehicle – in a ‘culture’ such as the US where media exposure is the only currency a control cannot be theose who do not appear on tv

By: ~~~~

~~~~ — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:04:34 +0000

Some people will do anything to go on teevee.

By: DB

DB — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:00:57 +0000

Couldn’t it also be that “appearing on Colbert” is on the list of “things to do when doomed?” Appearing on Colbert might coincide with many other appearances.

That said—I watch when candidates appear on Colbert, not when candidates appear on mainstream media blowhard shows…..so the bump applies for me!

By: Andrei

Andrei — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:18:37 +0000

In “Better know a district” Colbert interviews seated representatives, not “political candidates.” Colbert has claimed the Colbert bump primarily (exclusively?) of candidates. These two (BKAD and the Bump) seem to me to be unrelated features.

By: A

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:13:07 +0000

The “dip” before and the “bump” after the appearance seem largely to offset each other. Perhaps some donors are aware of the impending appearance and withhold their money until they can be sure their candidate hasn’t been made a fool of.