I don't know what's the more interesting tidbit here: that the Colbert Bump is a real phenomenon or that an actual university actually undertook an actual scientific study of it…

James Fowler of the University of California, San Diego, has just completed a study demonstrating the "first scientific evidence of Stephen Colbert's influence on political campaigns." Yes, Virginia, the Colbert bump is real.

Fowler examined the rate and amount of fundraising done by House candidates who appeared on Colbert's show for his "Better Know a District" segment. Democrats who appear on the show raise 44 percent more money in the 30 days after appearing on the show than Dems that don't appear. But it's bad news for Republicans: No bump. Their donations stay flat.

What?! The huge Republican demographic for the Colbert Report isn't being moved by their candidates' appearances? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

The obvious reason for this must be that liberals are just more dim-witted and easily-impressionable than conservatives. Or, at least, that's what Rush Limbaugh tells me.

Speaking of dim-witted and easily-impressionable…

Advice for Barack and Hillary, given that Colbert is taking his show on the road next week to Pennsylvania in advance of the presidential primary there: Get thee to the Report.

Just don't do it on the night before the primaries, or else all hell will break loose. Well, half of them anyway.