The Truthiness of the Colbert Bump

By: James Fowler, University of California, San Diego

Stephen Colbert hosts a comedy television program called The Colbert Report (the t at the end is silent—both of them!) in which he parodies personality-based news shows like The O'Reilly Factor that have become popular during the last 10 years. In an effort to make fun of these (usually conservative) personalities who engage in non-stop self-promotion, Colbert frequently trades outlandish claims for laughs. Among these is the claim that anyone who comes on the Report receives the “Colbert bump,” immediately vaulting the guest to stardom, fame, and fortune. Like Midas turning everything he touches to gold, Stephen Colbert can turn losers into winners, just by interviewing them on his show (but, ahem, he would never actually interview a loser now would he?).

Stephen Colbert first coined the term Colbert bump to describe the effect appearing on his program would have on candidates running for office. In particular, he trumpeted the victory of former Orleans singer John Hall in a very close election to become a member of Congress from New York in November 2006. He also claimed to have influenced the Connecticut race for U.S. Senate that same year. Ned Lamont, who earlier appeared on the Report, won the Democratic nomination against incumbent Joe Lieberman who refused to appear on the program (in spite of a temptingly comfy wingback chair Colbert had placed on the set just for him). However, Lamont did not return to the Report before the general election, so Colbert claimed this caused his subsequent loss to Lieberman! As his fans note, this proves that “the Colbert bump is stronger than ‘Joementum.’"

Democrats in Trouble and the Colbert Bump

First, let's start with Democrats and their fundraising activity before the Colbert Report. Notice in Figure 1 that 60 days prior to appearing on the show, Colbert Democrats are doing about as well as others. However, their luck takes a serious turn for the worse in the next 30 days. At their lowest point 28 days before appearing on the show, donations to Colbert Democrats lag those of similar candidates by 7.7 contributions per month. In dollar terms, Colbert Democrats are receiving $8,449 less than the control group, and this result is weakly significant (p = 0.06).

Once Democrats actually appear on the show, we see a dramatic rise in their performance. By the thirty-fourth day after their segment airs, Colbert Democrats are receiving significantly more contributions than matched candidates (p <>Colbert Democrats receive 9.2 more contributions than the treatment group (p = 0.03). This compares to the average for all candidates at all points in time in the data of 27.6 donations per month, suggesting a bump of about one-third over the normal number of donations received.

We also see a significant rise in receipts. On day 32, Colbert Democrats receive $8,247 more than the control group and the difference remains weakly significant until day 44 (p <>p = 0.01), and it remains below the 0.05 confidence threshold until day 42. To give a sense of scale, the average monthly amount received by all candidates at all points in time in the data is $21,107, so we are talking about a bump of roughly two-fifths over the normal rate of receipts.

Republicans and the Pre-Colbert Bump

Now let's take a look at the Republicans (the right half of Figure 1). It is important to point out that the results for Republicans are quite tentative since only eight have agreed to appear on Better Know a District. Nonetheless, some of the patterns that emerge are significant. Like their Democratic counterparts, Republicans who appear on the Report raise funds at about the same rate 60 days prior to the show as they do when their show airs. However, in stark contrast to the Democrats, the Republicans featured on the show have typically experienced a burst of activity I call the pre-Colbert bump. Exactly 30 days before appearing on the Report, Republican candidates have received a monthly average of 53.6 more donations than their matched counterparts, yielding an extra $63,357 in campaign funds. The difference between Colbert Republicans and the control group reaches its strongest significance 21 days before appearing on the show (p = 0.02 for the amount and p = 0.04 for the number of contributions) and gradually declines until the show airs.

Looking forward in time, however, Figure 1 shows that there is no evidence of a normal Colbert bump for Republicans. In the days after being on the show, the difference in monthly receipts between Colbert Republicans and the matched candidates actually turns negative, dipping to $4,207 by day 28 (though the difference is not significant, p = 0.46). In fact, Colbert Republicans receive a significantly smaller number of monthly contributions on days 17–20 (p = 0.05), with the difference hovering between 10 and 15 through day 30. Although this is not strong evidence of a “Colbert bust” since the sample is so small, it does argue strongly against evidence for a Colbert bump for Republicans who appear on the show. Ron Paul's legions of hopeful supporters are sure to be disappointed.

This is seriously (and significantly) excerpted from the latest issue of Politics and Society, a (real) academic journal published by the American Political Science Association, the largest poli sci organization in the US (and likely the world). I thought some of you might find it refreshing to know that we actually some relevant research once in a while--like is there a Colbert Bump. Anyway, for anyone interested I will be glad to send you a copy of the article. I am not sure how to post links to PDFs, and I am sure it would be a massive copyright violation anyway.