{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01718213058419244, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006872852233676976, 'mean_word_length': 5.229946524064171, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Did the “Road to the White House Run Through” Letterman? Chris Christie, Letterman, and Other-Disparaging Versus Self-Deprecating Humor

In this article we present the results of an experiment designed to disentangle the effects late-night talk show viewership have on presidential candidate evaluations. Respondents in one condition viewed a short video clip of David Letterman humorously disparaging New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, thought by many at the time to be considering a run for the presidency in 2016. Those in a second condition saw a short clip of Christie engaging in self-deprecating humor while appearing as a guest on Letterman's program. Compared with respondents in a control condition, those in the other-disparaging humor condition had lower evaluations of Christie and reported a lower likelihood of voting for him in 2016, while those in the self-deprecating humor condition had higher evaluations of him and expressed a greater likelihood of voting for him. The research has practical implications for modern campaigns and also serves to clarify some of the seemingly contradictory findings of earlier political humor effects research.