Measuring the "Colbert Bump" 674
An anonymous reader writes "Democratic politicians receive a 40% increase in contributions in the 30 days after appearing on the comedy cable show The Colbert Report. In contrast, their Republican counterparts essentially gain nothing. Moreover, even a cursory analysis demonstrates that despite being a comedy program The Colbert Report appears to exercise 'disproportionate real world influence' — likely due to the 'elite demographic' of its audience." In my home we refer to Stephen as "Loud Daddy" because my child would scream bloody murder when we paused him (and only him) on screen. Even at 8 months old the kid has strange taste.
Not a big Republican demographic on Comedy Central (Score:5, Informative)
Not to overplay the "Republicans are a bunch of old humorless farts" stereotype, but let's face it, Republicans aren't exactly Comedy Central's chief demographic in general (and they sure aren't the primary audience of "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report"). Even when conservatives do come on Stewart or Colbert, it's generally a very uncomfortable interview (polite applause from the audience, host trying desperately to think of something good to say).
There have been a few attempts at more conservative humor. Colin Quinn used to have a show [wikipedia.org] that followed Stewart that was more to the right (and very funny), but unfortunately it got cancelled after two or three seasons. And Fox News did a Daily Show-esque show called the "1/2 Hour News Hour" [wikipedia.org] that was just abysmal to watch and not even close to funny (it ran for 13 episodes before the Fox conservatives abandoned their opposition to euthenasia long enough to grant it a mercy killing).
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:5, Informative)
"one nutjob billionaire" wouldn't explain this, since there are contribution limits. The actions of no one individual, no matter how rich, could explain this. There are interesting dynamics at work here, some people may find it enjoyable to discuss them. But simple answers aren't the solution.
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:5, Informative)
TFA states that there is a significant increase not just in the amount of donations but also the number of donations.
Re:Dem elites! (Score:0, Informative)
Actually, the wealthy in the US are pretty evenly split. For example, the Hilton clan leans right, while the Hyatt clan goes left. Many businessfolk are conservative, while most entertainment & media folk are liberal. There's big money on both sides.
The Bump starts before Colbert (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the charts in the original article [apsanet.org], the bump starts around two weeks before they actually appear on the show. Which makes me suspect that the Bump is more likely due to the candidate making a round of interviews (of which Colbert is one), rather than it being due specifically to the Colbert interview.
Democratic (Score:4, Informative)
The correct adjective form is Democratic.
Re:Not a big Republican demographic on Comedy Cent (Score:5, Informative)
You must not be watching the same show that I am. Jon Stewart is an extremely kind/generous/softball interviewer. I've seen him conduct a 'contentious' interview maybe two or three times (one of those was Feith). Colbert is contentious and slightly in-your-face (with everyone), because he's impersonating Bill O'Reilly's evil twin. The venom you see there is necessary, if one is going to pretend to be a conservative.
What about Huckabee? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not a big Republican demographic on Comedy Cent (Score:3, Informative)
The best "Contentious" interview he ever had was with John Bolton [comedycentral.com], who made some pretty outrageous claims that Jon waved off, only to have a presidential scholar on the next day to contradict everything the guy said.
That being said, his least contentious/biggest softball interview? Lynn Chaney, by far.
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:5, Informative)
The Mike Huckabee "bump" bit lead to the greatest evening on televsion EVER:
The Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert/Conan Obrien crossover.
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:5, Informative)
Mark Smith was quoted in the New York Times as saying, "...he hadn't seen much of Colbert's work" and he was the one who invited Colbert. People walked out. The reception was mostly silent and unfriendly. Bush himself looks like he's wondering how to get Colbert sent to Gitmo.
Some conservatives may be able to take a joke (Scalia apparently laughed his ass off), but Bush isn't one of them. In his whole Presidency this was probably the only time he was forced to sit and listen to someone rip on him for his policies, and it's clear from the video that he didn't enjoy it.
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:4, Informative)
source [wikipedia.org]
Colbert did own presidential facebook (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Colbert isn't republican... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:2, Informative)
source [wikipedia.org]
Don't you worry about Wikipedia we'll change it when we get home. We'll change a lot of things.
WRONG WRONG WRONG (Score:3, Informative)
He didn't "point out", he lied. The symptons MJ Fox exhibited were those of /taking/ the medication (L-dopa), not the disease.
Re:Colbert (Score:3, Informative)
>The cooked up story about people calling from cell phones while the plane was in flight? (Have you ever made a successful phone call while a plane was in flight at any altitude? I have tried over and over and over again and have never been successful and I simply don't buy that story at all.)
It all depends on where you happen to be flying over at the moment. If you're in the middle of the Pacific, you're probably not going to get a signal. But if you're flying over any reasonably populated area, it's not difficult to get a signal even 5 miles up. I just flew from Vegas to Cleveland a few weeks back and forgot to turn my phone off until in the middle of the trip and I had 2 bars showing then. I didn't actually make a call, but my phone was saying it was ok.
Besides, weren't those flights brought closer to the ground than they would usually be before they were crashed?
Babies + Colbert (Score:2, Informative)
Taco's kid isn't the only one. My son started watching Colbert with the family quite young. It never failed to get a reaction from six months onward: Sesame Street got interest and curiosity, but that eagle and the opening theme heralded a wide-eyed sit-up-take-notice response. It was so strong that we'd play Colbert to get him to stop crying during teething misery. (Not crying makes giving medicine a whoooole lot easier.) Nowadays, when we sit down to watch something and start the music, he promptly runs over and plants himself on the middle of the couch between us and stares raptly.
It doesn't last, of course - he runs off again pretty quick, particularly losing interest during the interviews - but everything before that seems to hold his attention pretty good, and he's now almost two. Stewart gets a lesser but equally approving reaction - he's more likely to come sit down with us, but not so likely to sit up and take notice at the opening theme.
Babies: nature's shininess meter.
By my experiments, Colbert > Noggin > Sesame Street > Stewart > Teletubbies, etc. There's a ranking system at work here in my boy's brain, though I'm not quite sure what it is yet, as he hasn't got the ability to inform me of his true opinions.
I will note: John Stewart introduced a puppet named "Gitmo". It was Elmo with a beard. When he fed that thing to the dogs, I do believe we experienced the boy's first traumatic television event. Ever after, the hubby vets the programs before the baby gets 'em. That was the one moment I regretted the TV. Most of the time, I tend to take Jeff Vogel's parenting approach [ironycentral.com]. TV is a god at capturing a child's attention, and should be used wisely.
Re:Colbert (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Colbert (Score:5, Informative)
Congress approves the budget, it's drawn up by the executive.
Nope. It's fully Congress' responsibility. [blogspot.com]
Re:Colbert (Score:3, Informative)
(before you jump down my throat consider this, 2.5 million kids were given speed in 2003 for ADHD), coke will kill you if you try it... does anyone actually lend any credence to this stuff anymore?
That's a complete mischaracterization of Ritalin. The amount that is prescribed is only a small fraction of how much a person using it recreationally uses, and it's closely monitored by the Dr. and pharmacist to ensure that it's not being abused. You're definitely not going to get buzzed or addicted on the amount that a doctor is prescribing without taking more than the prescribed dose.
Comparing it with the recreational use is a completely unfair comparison to make.
As for coke, I wouldn't be surprised if that did happen from time to time. It definitely does happen with alcohol, somebody that's never drank before and doesn't know how much is too much can definitely drink themselves to death on the first day.
Re:I Can't Find a Reasonable Conclusion (Score:3, Informative)
Colbert has commented in interviews that it didn't feel like he "bombed" at all. It was a giant room with like 3000 people in it. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, that while all the people up front may not have been laughing, there were 1000 at the back who where. And so with every joke, he got a good response. The problem with the video everyone has seen is that the only microphone is the one Colbert is speaking into. It simply doesn't pick up sounds from the room unless they are overwhelmingly loud.
There's a FREE recording on iTunes of a book reading Colbert did at an Apple store. In the Q & A period at the end, he talks about this. It's about 45 minutes in.
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?i=20072008&id=266215977 [apple.com]
Proof. (Score:3, Informative)
Your next post will either be concrete proof of this or an abject confession that it's a lie. Those are your ONLY possible choices.
I have plenty of proof. First is the assault on the free markets. Obama and his arch liberals have attacked:
Oil - see various speeches about "big oil"
Auto - see various speeches about telling Detroit what cars to build
Agriculture - see various speeches about "the price of food."
Coal - see cap and trade calls.
Health - attacks health insurance industry
Trade - attacks free trade
Finance - attacks lenders
Really, the question with Obama, and most leftists, is what business has he not attacked? Its pretty clear that Obama despises private enterprise, because, every time someone makes a profit, he's out there arguing that those profits need to be taken. And, in fact, if you really look at cap and trade, it really is, getting government's permission and a piece of every form of economic activity there is.
By the same token, Obama wants to vastly expand government even more than Bush has expanded it. He argues that, rather than everyone working the same number of days per year to pay their taxes, some folks should have to work, so that he can pay the bill for... let's see, his $500 billion civilian helper corp to rival the pentagon, his $300 billion health insurance plan, his plan to double medicare spending, his plan to increase social security spending, and his plan to buy everyone broadband...
So, he wants to restrict, tax, and otherwise disincentivize economic activity in the private sector, whereas turn off the brakes on government. This is essentially a command and control economy, where, in the supposed name of saving the planet and helping the poor, Obama and his boys and girls will build a federal state that consumes nearly every dollar of profit earned by everyone, and gives it to himself.
That's pretty commy crap enough for me.
Piggy Piggy super Obama on top. Or, maybe he just wants to be like a Pharoah. Daddy's little Pharoah... that's your Liberal Messiah.