Did Jon Stewart elect Donald Trump? Evidence from television ratings data

Authored by sciencedirect.com and submitted by smurfyjenkins

To identify the effects of televised political comedy on the 2016 presidential election, we leverage the change in hosts of two popular shows, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, and both shows' subsequent ratings declines. By combining granular geographic ratings data with election results, we are able to isolate the shows' effects on the election. For The Daily Show, we find a strong positive effect on Jon Stewart's departure and Trump's vote share. By our estimate, the transition at The Daily Show spurred a 1.1% increase in Trump's county-level vote share. Further analysis suggests that the effect may be owed more to Stewart's effects on mobilization, not his effects on attitudes. We also find weaker evidence indicating that the end of The Colbert Report was associated with a decline in 2016 voter turnout. Our results make clear that late-night political comedy can have meaningful effects on presidential elections.

Non-SequitorSquid on May 1st, 2019 at 16:20 UTC »

So I just finished reading the entire article (8pages so not much of a challenge) From how I understand it Trump did not get a 'boost' from The Daily Show ending. Rather, Stewart worked as a mobilizer to get people out to vote meaning that 1.1% may have been smaller or completely gone if he had stayed merely because voter turn out for the other side would have been higher.

suggesting that Stewart's role in the election is understood in relationship to mobilization, rather than persuasion.

It does not sufficiently set up causation (as they also mention that we should not do) only that there is a significant correlation.

At no point do they conclude that because of Stewart leaving does it increase republican voting turnout. Instead that is a speculation they make in the conclusion based on other proven statements.

...most affected were otherwise politically disengaged and uninformed...Zaller(2004) demonstrates, such voters are precisely the most likely voters to shift partisan allegiances between presidential elections. When the shows’ ratings declined and those viewers went elsewhere, their politics likely changed as a result.

The authors themselves say to take their findings with...

...considerable caution.

​

If someone got a different impression from this reading I would like to hear it. This is just how I understood it to be and I may have misunderstood.

MisterManatee on May 1st, 2019 at 15:33 UTC »

It's not actually as bad a study as I thought it was. The effect size is pretty small (1.1% increase), but they're using a real causal model (diff-in-diff) and included socioeconomic controls. I just can't help but remain a bit skeptical at the underlying premise.

Edit: I read their methodology more carefully and am not convinced by it. The causal link between declining viewership and increased Republican vote share isn’t convincingly established. And it’s not like they have a proper control since Jon Stewart left at the same time for everyone. Honestly, I think it’s just coincidence.

Tiramitsunami on May 1st, 2019 at 15:26 UTC »

I feel like the real issue here is that our news infrastructure has become so bad that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report served some vital role in educating, organizing, and rallying voters.