about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,035 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion.  The chart goes from 1979 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image

AI explanation

Every democratic vote cast created a tiny, invisible wave of hotdog-scented air that wafted its way to the nearest competitive eater, triggering an uncontrollable craving for the perfect, politically charged snack. As the votes stacked up, so did the hotdog intake, leading to a wiener of a win for the reigning champion, who couldn't resist the democratic temptation to indulge in a sausage fest of victory. It's a case of political polse-itivity that no one saw coming, but it just goes to show that in the world of competitive eating, even the most unexpected factors can have a bun-believable impact.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ Cutsy art illustration ] Generate an image of a whimsical scene in Washington, showcasing the Democratic presidential primary voting process. The ballots emit a savory aura reminiscent of hotdogs, influencing the nearby Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Depict a wave of invisible hotdog-scented air emanating from the ballots, drifting towards the eating competition. The reigning champion, unable to resist the politically charged craving, indulges in a surprising sausage feast. Show the unexpected link between political support and competitive eating, solidifying a win for the champion. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Art nouveau Cutsy art illustration Brutalism Scalar art Cubism
ChatGPT: Cutsy art illustration

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, in the following situation: Every democratic vote cast created a tiny, invisible wave of hotdog-scented air that wafted its way to the nearest competitive eater, triggering an uncontrollable craving for the perfect, politically charged snack. As the votes stacked up, so did the hotdog intake, leading to a wiener of a win for the reigning champion, who couldn't resist the democratic temptation to indulge in a sausage fest of victory. It's a case of political polse-itivity that no one saw coming, but it just goes to show that in the world of competitive eating, even the most unexpected factors can have a bun-believable impact.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Washington, as the votes for the Democratic presidential candidate continue to stack up, a wave of invisible hotdog-scented air emanates from each ballot, forming a savory aura that drifts to the nearby Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. The reigning champion, unable to resist the politically charged craving, indulges in a surprising sausage feast, solidifying a win influenced by the unexpected link between political support and competitive eating.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Cutsy art illustration ] and depicting this scene: In Washington, as the votes for the Democratic presidential candidate continue to stack up, a wave of invisible hotdog-scented air emanates from each ballot, forming a savory aura that drifts to the nearby Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. The reigning champion, unable to resist the politically charged craving, indulges in a surprising sausage feast, solidifying a win influenced by the unexpected link between political support and competitive eating. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ Cutsy art illustration ] Generate an image of a whimsical scene in Washington, showcasing the Democratic presidential primary voting process. The ballots emit a savory aura reminiscent of hotdogs, influencing the nearby Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Depict a wave of invisible hotdog-scented air emanating from the ballots, drifting towards the eating competition. The reigning champion, unable to resist the politically charged craving, indulges in a surprising sausage feast. Show the unexpected link between political support and competitive eating, solidifying a win for the champion.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington caused Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Ballot and the Bun: An Examination of the Correlation between Democratic Votes in Washington State and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

The Journal of Gastronomic Politics

Jan 2024
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, make it sound serious.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Wikipedia to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and p < 0.01 for 1979 to 2020.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"The Ballot and the Bun: An Examination of the Correlation between Democratic Votes in Washington State and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we delve into the ever-compelling correlation between political preference and the competitive consumption of encased meats. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study scrutinizes the electorate's support for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State alongside the consumption habits of the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and statistical significance of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1979 to 2020, our findings suggest a strong link between these seemingly distinct phenomena.

Our analysis unveils a curious alignment between the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the hotdogs devoured by the esteemed champion of Nathan's annual gastronomic showdown. This unexpected connection prompts us to ponder, "Are we what we vote, or are we what we eat?" Perhaps our political ideologies and dietary preferences are more entwined than we realize, resulting in a "bundamental" relationship between ballot box decisions and hotdog buns.

Our research offers a whimsical spin on the interplay between political inclinations and epicurean pursuits. As we unravel the peculiar nexus between votes and wieners, let us also savor the humor in such an unexpected correlation, reminding ourselves that even the most improbable connections can prompt a hearty laugh – much like a well-timed dad joke at a backyard barbecue.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"The Ballot and the Bun: An Examination of the Correlation between Democratic Votes in Washington State and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we delve into the ever-compelling correlation between political preference and the competitive consumption of encased meats. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study scrutinizes the electorate's support for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State alongside the consumption habits of the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and statistical significance of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1979 to 2020, our findings suggest a strong link between these seemingly distinct phenomena.

Our analysis unveils a curious alignment between the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the hotdogs devoured by the esteemed champion of Nathan's annual gastronomic showdown. This unexpected connection prompts us to ponder, "Are we what we vote, or are we what we eat?" Perhaps our political ideologies and dietary preferences are more entwined than we realize, resulting in a "bundamental" relationship between ballot box decisions and hotdog buns.

Our research offers a whimsical spin on the interplay between political inclinations and epicurean pursuits. As we unravel the peculiar nexus between votes and wieners, let us also savor the humor in such an unexpected correlation, reminding ourselves that even the most improbable connections can prompt a hearty laugh – much like a well-timed dad joke at a backyard barbecue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Ah, the curious intersection of politics and processed meat – a topic that has undoubtedly left many a scholar scratching their heads and checking their cholesterol levels. In this study, we embark upon an investigation that tantalizingly links the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the astonishing consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. This whimsical correlation has the potential to spark both intellectual curiosity and culinary cravings – truly a feast for the mind and stomach!

As we delve into the realms of statistics and gustatory indulgence, it's essential to maintain a keen sense of humor. After all, who said academic research can't be as delightful as a well-grilled bratwurst? In that spirit, let's savor a relevant dad joke to kick off our scholarly escapade: Why don't hot dogs make good pets? Because they're the wurst! Now, let's relish the journey ahead.

Our quest for correlation and causation takes us deep into the heart of empirical analysis. The data sourced from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia forms the bedrock of our investigation, allowing us to unearth intriguing patterns that defy conventional wisdom and tickle our intellectual taste buds. Our findings unveil a stunning correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the robust association between Democratic votes and hotdog consumption, much like the dependable bond between ketchup and mustard on a ballpark frank.

The relationship between political expression and competitive eating prowess may seem as peculiar as a tuba player at a speed dating event, but our research shines a light on the unexpected harmony between these seemingly disparate domains. It's like discovering a secret ingredient in your grandmother's chili – a dash of electoral influence with a pinch of bun-based bravado.

Now, here's a sizzling mind-teaser: How do you know when a joke becomes a dad joke? When the punchline becomes apparent! Just like the punchline of our study, where we uncover the bun-believable linkage between ballots and buns. Let's continue this academic journey with a thirst for knowledge and an appetite for discovery, all while sprinkling liberal amounts of humor to keep the scholarly atmosphere as light and enjoyable as a summer barbecue.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"The Ballot and the Bun: An Examination of the Correlation between Democratic Votes in Washington State and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we delve into the ever-compelling correlation between political preference and the competitive consumption of encased meats. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study scrutinizes the electorate's support for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State alongside the consumption habits of the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and statistical significance of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1979 to 2020, our findings suggest a strong link between these seemingly distinct phenomena.

Our analysis unveils a curious alignment between the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the hotdogs devoured by the esteemed champion of Nathan's annual gastronomic showdown. This unexpected connection prompts us to ponder, "Are we what we vote, or are we what we eat?" Perhaps our political ideologies and dietary preferences are more entwined than we realize, resulting in a "bundamental" relationship between ballot box decisions and hotdog buns.

Our research offers a whimsical spin on the interplay between political inclinations and epicurean pursuits. As we unravel the peculiar nexus between votes and wieners, let us also savor the humor in such an unexpected correlation, reminding ourselves that even the most improbable connections can prompt a hearty laugh – much like a well-timed dad joke at a backyard barbecue.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the curious intersection of politics and processed meat – a topic that has undoubtedly left many a scholar scratching their heads and checking their cholesterol levels. In this study, we embark upon an investigation that tantalizingly links the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the astonishing consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. This whimsical correlation has the potential to spark both intellectual curiosity and culinary cravings – truly a feast for the mind and stomach!
As we delve into the realms of statistics and gustatory indulgence, it's essential to maintain a keen sense of humor. After all, who said academic research can't be as delightful as a well-grilled bratwurst? In that spirit, let's savor a relevant dad joke to kick off our scholarly escapade: Why don't hot dogs make good pets? Because they're the wurst! Now, let's relish the journey ahead.
Our quest for correlation and causation takes us deep into the heart of empirical analysis. The data sourced from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia forms the bedrock of our investigation, allowing us to unearth intriguing patterns that defy conventional wisdom and tickle our intellectual taste buds. Our findings unveil a stunning correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the robust association between Democratic votes and hotdog consumption, much like the dependable bond between ketchup and mustard on a ballpark frank.
The relationship between political expression and competitive eating prowess may seem as peculiar as a tuba player at a speed dating event, but our research shines a light on the unexpected harmony between these seemingly disparate domains. It's like discovering a secret ingredient in your grandmother's chili – a dash of electoral influence with a pinch of bun-based bravado.
Now, here's a sizzling mind-teaser: How do you know when a joke becomes a dad joke? When the punchline becomes apparent! Just like the punchline of our study, where we uncover the bun-believable linkage between ballots and buns. Let's continue this academic journey with a thirst for knowledge and an appetite for discovery, all while sprinkling liberal amounts of humor to keep the scholarly atmosphere as light and enjoyable as a summer barbecue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Smith and Doe (2015) explored the intricate dynamics of political voting patterns in Washington State, shedding light on the nuanced factors that shape electoral choices. Meanwhile, Jones (2018) conducted a comprehensive analysis of competitive eating trends, delving into the awe-inspiring feats of gastronomic athleticism displayed at events such as the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. These seminal works provide a sturdy foundation for our investigation into the quirky correlation between Democratic votes and hotdog consumption – a juxtaposition as surprising as finding a pickle in a peanut butter sandwich.

Turning to non-fiction sources, "Eating on the Campaign Trail: Political Tastes and Culinary Campaigns" by Foodie McFooderson (2013) and "Democracy on a Bun: A Comparative Study of Sausage Politics" by Brat Wurststein (2017) offer intriguing insights into the intersections of politics and food. However, while these works provide valuable context, they fail to directly address the specific connection we aim to unravel in our study. It's as if they brought hotdog buns to a hamburger cook-off – close, but not quite the perfect fit.

On the more imaginative side, fictional works such as "Frankfurter Fables: A Tale of Two Condiments" by Mustardella Ketchupson (2008) and "Ballot Box Banquets: Political Palates and Culinary Coalitions" by Veggie Burger (2016) inject a whimsical flair into the discourse around political gastronomy. Though these literary escapades offer a welcome reprieve from scholarly rigor, they regrettably don't provide empirical evidence to support our investigation. It's akin to bringing a veggie platter to a barbecue – refreshing, but missing the meaty essence of our inquiry.

In the pursuit of a well-rounded literature review, it's essential to consider unconventional sources of insight. As such, we explored the vast realms of knowledge contained within the backs of shampoo bottles, where we unexpectedly stumbled upon cryptic messages that seemed to cryptically reference the hotdog and voting conundrum. While we can't quite incorporate these follicle-focused findings into our analysis, they did remind us that even the most unlikely places can harbor puzzles waiting to be unraveled. It's like finding a hotdog in a haystack – improbable, yet strangely intriguing.

As we navigate the seas of scholarly inquiry and hotdog-themed humor, it's crucial to maintain a balance between rigorous analysis and lighthearted amusement. The link between political preferences and competitive eating habits may seem as improbable as a hotdog walking on its own, but our study aims to tease out the underlying connection, ultimately adding a dollop of mustard to the tapestry of academic discourse.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Wikipedia . You used data from 1979 to 2020

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"The Ballot and the Bun: An Examination of the Correlation between Democratic Votes in Washington State and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we delve into the ever-compelling correlation between political preference and the competitive consumption of encased meats. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study scrutinizes the electorate's support for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State alongside the consumption habits of the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and statistical significance of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1979 to 2020, our findings suggest a strong link between these seemingly distinct phenomena.

Our analysis unveils a curious alignment between the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the hotdogs devoured by the esteemed champion of Nathan's annual gastronomic showdown. This unexpected connection prompts us to ponder, "Are we what we vote, or are we what we eat?" Perhaps our political ideologies and dietary preferences are more entwined than we realize, resulting in a "bundamental" relationship between ballot box decisions and hotdog buns.

Our research offers a whimsical spin on the interplay between political inclinations and epicurean pursuits. As we unravel the peculiar nexus between votes and wieners, let us also savor the humor in such an unexpected correlation, reminding ourselves that even the most improbable connections can prompt a hearty laugh – much like a well-timed dad joke at a backyard barbecue.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the curious intersection of politics and processed meat – a topic that has undoubtedly left many a scholar scratching their heads and checking their cholesterol levels. In this study, we embark upon an investigation that tantalizingly links the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the astonishing consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. This whimsical correlation has the potential to spark both intellectual curiosity and culinary cravings – truly a feast for the mind and stomach!
As we delve into the realms of statistics and gustatory indulgence, it's essential to maintain a keen sense of humor. After all, who said academic research can't be as delightful as a well-grilled bratwurst? In that spirit, let's savor a relevant dad joke to kick off our scholarly escapade: Why don't hot dogs make good pets? Because they're the wurst! Now, let's relish the journey ahead.
Our quest for correlation and causation takes us deep into the heart of empirical analysis. The data sourced from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia forms the bedrock of our investigation, allowing us to unearth intriguing patterns that defy conventional wisdom and tickle our intellectual taste buds. Our findings unveil a stunning correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the robust association between Democratic votes and hotdog consumption, much like the dependable bond between ketchup and mustard on a ballpark frank.
The relationship between political expression and competitive eating prowess may seem as peculiar as a tuba player at a speed dating event, but our research shines a light on the unexpected harmony between these seemingly disparate domains. It's like discovering a secret ingredient in your grandmother's chili – a dash of electoral influence with a pinch of bun-based bravado.
Now, here's a sizzling mind-teaser: How do you know when a joke becomes a dad joke? When the punchline becomes apparent! Just like the punchline of our study, where we uncover the bun-believable linkage between ballots and buns. Let's continue this academic journey with a thirst for knowledge and an appetite for discovery, all while sprinkling liberal amounts of humor to keep the scholarly atmosphere as light and enjoyable as a summer barbecue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unearth the hidden ties between political preferences and hotdog consumption, we embarked on a journey through time and data, applying a methodology as robust and flavorful as a well-seasoned bratwurst. Our data collection process involved mining information from a variety of sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia. While some may question the credibility of utilizing Wikipedia for scholarly pursuits, rest assured that we cross-referenced and fact-checked the information to ensure the utmost accuracy – after all, we take our hotdogs and statistical analyses seriously, even if our jokes are entirely "relish-able."

The first step in our convoluted and poignant mess of research was to gather the necessary data on Democratic presidential votes in Washington State from 1979 to 2020. We delved into archives and databases, navigating through the labyrinth of political statistics with the precision and determination of a contestant in a hotdog eating competition – albeit with considerably less indigestion afterward.

Our next endeavor involved tracking the hotdog consumption habits of the illustrious and illustriously hungry champions of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. We combed through historical records, interviews, and press releases, sometimes feeling like amateur detectives in search of the "missing wurst" – pun intended because, let's face it, it's hard to resist a good food-related pun.

With these seemingly unrelated data sets in our scholarly grasp, we undertook the virtuosic art of statistical analysis. We applied the venerable Pearson correlation coefficient to discern the degree of association between Democratic votes and hotdog consumption. This analysis allowed us to quantify the correlation, answering the burning question of whether political inclinations and competitive eating capabilities sizzle together like onions on a grill.

Our statistical journey was not devoid of challenges, akin to the exasperation of trying to eat a hotdog without any condiments – or conducting research without encountering unexpected hiccups. Nonetheless, armed with humor and determination, we surmounted the obstacles and emerged triumphant, much like a hotdog emerging unscathed from a high-stakes eating competition – bun and all.

Admittedly, our methodology may appear unorthodox in the realm of scientif-ic research, but we fervently believe that the study of correlations should be as engaging as a well-told anecdote – albeit one garnished with a zesty relish of probability and a sprinkle of research rigor. As we traverse the landscape of absurdity and academia, let's infuse our inquiry with a generous serving of humor and humility, much like adding a dollop of mustard to a hotdog – for what is research without a delightful twist or a funny bone left untickled?


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Wikipedia .

For the time period 1979 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9518823, r-squared of 0.9060799, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"The Ballot and the Bun: An Examination of the Correlation between Democratic Votes in Washington State and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we delve into the ever-compelling correlation between political preference and the competitive consumption of encased meats. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study scrutinizes the electorate's support for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State alongside the consumption habits of the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and statistical significance of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1979 to 2020, our findings suggest a strong link between these seemingly distinct phenomena.

Our analysis unveils a curious alignment between the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the hotdogs devoured by the esteemed champion of Nathan's annual gastronomic showdown. This unexpected connection prompts us to ponder, "Are we what we vote, or are we what we eat?" Perhaps our political ideologies and dietary preferences are more entwined than we realize, resulting in a "bundamental" relationship between ballot box decisions and hotdog buns.

Our research offers a whimsical spin on the interplay between political inclinations and epicurean pursuits. As we unravel the peculiar nexus between votes and wieners, let us also savor the humor in such an unexpected correlation, reminding ourselves that even the most improbable connections can prompt a hearty laugh – much like a well-timed dad joke at a backyard barbecue.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Ah, the curious intersection of politics and processed meat – a topic that has undoubtedly left many a scholar scratching their heads and checking their cholesterol levels. In this study, we embark upon an investigation that tantalizingly links the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the astonishing consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. This whimsical correlation has the potential to spark both intellectual curiosity and culinary cravings – truly a feast for the mind and stomach!
As we delve into the realms of statistics and gustatory indulgence, it's essential to maintain a keen sense of humor. After all, who said academic research can't be as delightful as a well-grilled bratwurst? In that spirit, let's savor a relevant dad joke to kick off our scholarly escapade: Why don't hot dogs make good pets? Because they're the wurst! Now, let's relish the journey ahead.
Our quest for correlation and causation takes us deep into the heart of empirical analysis. The data sourced from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia forms the bedrock of our investigation, allowing us to unearth intriguing patterns that defy conventional wisdom and tickle our intellectual taste buds. Our findings unveil a stunning correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the robust association between Democratic votes and hotdog consumption, much like the dependable bond between ketchup and mustard on a ballpark frank.
The relationship between political expression and competitive eating prowess may seem as peculiar as a tuba player at a speed dating event, but our research shines a light on the unexpected harmony between these seemingly disparate domains. It's like discovering a secret ingredient in your grandmother's chili – a dash of electoral influence with a pinch of bun-based bravado.
Now, here's a sizzling mind-teaser: How do you know when a joke becomes a dad joke? When the punchline becomes apparent! Just like the punchline of our study, where we uncover the bun-believable linkage between ballots and buns. Let's continue this academic journey with a thirst for knowledge and an appetite for discovery, all while sprinkling liberal amounts of humor to keep the scholarly atmosphere as light and enjoyable as a summer barbecue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our analysis of the connection between Democratic votes in Washington State and hotdog consumption by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9518823. This correlation indicates a strong positive relationship between the two variables, underscoring a surprising link between political preference and the competitive consumption of cylindrical meat products. It's a pairing more delightful than a hotdog topped with extra relish – a true "wiener" in the world of statistical findings.

Fig. 1 illustrates the close relationship between the volume of Democratic votes and the quantity of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. The scatterplot showcases a trend line that would make any statistician proud, demonstrating the significant association between these unassuming variables. It's like watching a hotdog and a ballot box engage in a dance of correlation, proving that in the world of data, truth can be as strange as fiction.

Undoubtedly, our findings raise important questions about the intersection of political ideology and competitive eating prowess. Could it be that individuals who lean towards the Democratic party are also inclined to relish the thrill of consuming an excessive number of hotdogs in a competitive setting? It's a thought as intriguing as a mystery meat hotdog – one can't help but wonder about the origins and implications of such a curious phenomenon.

The compelling r-squared value of 0.9060799 further underscores the robustness of the relationship between Democratic votes in Washington State and hotdog consumption by the Nathan's champion. This high r-squared value suggests that a significant proportion of the variability in hotdog consumption can be explained by the variation in Democratic votes. It's like the perfect bun-to-hotdog ratio – a harmonious blend of variables that defines the quintessential hotdog experience.

As we digest these remarkable findings, it's essential to appreciate the delightful humor in uncovering such a connection. The statistical significance of p < 0.01 reminds us that even the most improbable correlations can pass the rigorous test of statistical scrutiny. It's like finding a hidden dressing in a mathematical salad – a delightful surprise that adds zest to the scholarly menu.

In conclusion, our research sheds light on the "bundamental" relationship between Democratic votes in Washington State and hotdog consumption by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. As we wrap up our thought-provoking findings, let's savor one last dad joke: Why don't hotdogs ever argue? Because they're on a roll! Indeed, our study showcases that even the most unexpected correlations can take center stage, much like a well-cooked hotdog at a summer barbecue.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
"The Ballot and the Bun: An Examination of the Correlation between Democratic Votes in Washington State and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we delve into the ever-compelling correlation between political preference and the competitive consumption of encased meats. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study scrutinizes the electorate's support for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State alongside the consumption habits of the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and statistical significance of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1979 to 2020, our findings suggest a strong link between these seemingly distinct phenomena.

Our analysis unveils a curious alignment between the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the hotdogs devoured by the esteemed champion of Nathan's annual gastronomic showdown. This unexpected connection prompts us to ponder, "Are we what we vote, or are we what we eat?" Perhaps our political ideologies and dietary preferences are more entwined than we realize, resulting in a "bundamental" relationship between ballot box decisions and hotdog buns.

Our research offers a whimsical spin on the interplay between political inclinations and epicurean pursuits. As we unravel the peculiar nexus between votes and wieners, let us also savor the humor in such an unexpected correlation, reminding ourselves that even the most improbable connections can prompt a hearty laugh – much like a well-timed dad joke at a backyard barbecue.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Smith and Doe (2015) explored the intricate dynamics of political voting patterns in Washington State, shedding light on the nuanced factors that shape electoral choices. Meanwhile, Jones (2018) conducted a comprehensive analysis of competitive eating trends, delving into the awe-inspiring feats of gastronomic athleticism displayed at events such as the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. These seminal works provide a sturdy foundation for our investigation into the quirky correlation between Democratic votes and hotdog consumption – a juxtaposition as surprising as finding a pickle in a peanut butter sandwich.
Turning to non-fiction sources, "Eating on the Campaign Trail: Political Tastes and Culinary Campaigns" by Foodie McFooderson (2013) and "Democracy on a Bun: A Comparative Study of Sausage Politics" by Brat Wurststein (2017) offer intriguing insights into the intersections of politics and food. However, while these works provide valuable context, they fail to directly address the specific connection we aim to unravel in our study. It's as if they brought hotdog buns to a hamburger cook-off – close, but not quite the perfect fit.
On the more imaginative side, fictional works such as "Frankfurter Fables: A Tale of Two Condiments" by Mustardella Ketchupson (2008) and "Ballot Box Banquets: Political Palates and Culinary Coalitions" by Veggie Burger (2016) inject a whimsical flair into the discourse around political gastronomy. Though these literary escapades offer a welcome reprieve from scholarly rigor, they regrettably don't provide empirical evidence to support our investigation. It's akin to bringing a veggie platter to a barbecue – refreshing, but missing the meaty essence of our inquiry.
In the pursuit of a well-rounded literature review, it's essential to consider unconventional sources of insight. As such, we explored the vast realms of knowledge contained within the backs of shampoo bottles, where we unexpectedly stumbled upon cryptic messages that seemed to cryptically reference the hotdog and voting conundrum. While we can't quite incorporate these follicle-focused findings into our analysis, they did remind us that even the most unlikely places can harbor puzzles waiting to be unraveled. It's like finding a hotdog in a haystack – improbable, yet strangely intriguing.
As we navigate the seas of scholarly inquiry and hotdog-themed humor, it's crucial to maintain a balance between rigorous analysis and lighthearted amusement. The link between political preferences and competitive eating habits may seem as improbable as a hotdog walking on its own, but our study aims to tease out the underlying connection, ultimately adding a dollop of mustard to the tapestry of academic discourse.

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the connection between Democratic votes in Washington State and hotdog consumption by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9518823. This correlation indicates a strong positive relationship between the two variables, underscoring a surprising link between political preference and the competitive consumption of cylindrical meat products. It's a pairing more delightful than a hotdog topped with extra relish – a true "wiener" in the world of statistical findings.
Fig. 1 illustrates the close relationship between the volume of Democratic votes and the quantity of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. The scatterplot showcases a trend line that would make any statistician proud, demonstrating the significant association between these unassuming variables. It's like watching a hotdog and a ballot box engage in a dance of correlation, proving that in the world of data, truth can be as strange as fiction.
Undoubtedly, our findings raise important questions about the intersection of political ideology and competitive eating prowess. Could it be that individuals who lean towards the Democratic party are also inclined to relish the thrill of consuming an excessive number of hotdogs in a competitive setting? It's a thought as intriguing as a mystery meat hotdog – one can't help but wonder about the origins and implications of such a curious phenomenon.
The compelling r-squared value of 0.9060799 further underscores the robustness of the relationship between Democratic votes in Washington State and hotdog consumption by the Nathan's champion. This high r-squared value suggests that a significant proportion of the variability in hotdog consumption can be explained by the variation in Democratic votes. It's like the perfect bun-to-hotdog ratio – a harmonious blend of variables that defines the quintessential hotdog experience.
As we digest these remarkable findings, it's essential to appreciate the delightful humor in uncovering such a connection. The statistical significance of p < 0.01 reminds us that even the most improbable correlations can pass the rigorous test of statistical scrutiny. It's like finding a hidden dressing in a mathematical salad – a delightful surprise that adds zest to the scholarly menu.
In conclusion, our research sheds light on the "bundamental" relationship between Democratic votes in Washington State and hotdog consumption by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. As we wrap up our thought-provoking findings, let's savor one last dad joke: Why don't hotdogs ever argue? Because they're on a roll! Indeed, our study showcases that even the most unexpected correlations can take center stage, much like a well-cooked hotdog at a summer barbecue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of our study not only bolster the existing research on the curious interplay between political proclivities and competitive consumption of encased meats but also offer a flavorful contribution to the field of statistical gastronomy. Our robust correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 lends substantial weight to the argument that there is indeed a palpable connection between Democratic votes in Washington State and the hotdog-chomping antics of the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. It's as if statistical analyses and culinary capers have nestled snugly into a bun of empirical evidence, creating a palatable blend of humor and hard data.

We harken back to the whimsical works of Frankfurter Fables and Ballot Box Banquets, whose figurative musings on the confluence of politics and cuisine now find an unexpected validation in our empirical findings. The tongue-in-cheek suggestions made by these literary sources have been served up with a generous helping of correlative truth, affirming that sometimes, the most unexpected connections can simmer and stew beneath the surface, much like an all-beef hotdog awaiting its turn on the grill.

The strength of our r-squared value, a commendable 0.9060799, further expounds the robustness of the association between Democratic votes in the Evergreen State and the hotdog devouring proclivities of the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition winner. This statistic speaks volumes about the extent to which the variability in hotdog consumption can be elucidated by the variation in Democratic votes - it's a statistical harmony akin to a well-composed symphony of mustard and relish, transforming seemingly disparate entities into a harmonious medley.

Our study not only underscores the potential societal implications of this correlation but also presents a well-done (or should we say, well-grilled) example of the enduring charm of statistical analysis. The p < 0.01 level of statistical significance unfurls a delightful surprise, much akin to chancing upon a perfectly toasted hotdog bun in a sea of research data. It reminds us that even in the serious realm of statistical inquiry, there is room for a sprinkle of levity and unexpected discoveries.

As we mull over the implications of a "bundamental" connection between electoral preferences and competitive hotdog consumption, let's pause for one more dad joke: Why did the hotdog turn down a chance to be in our study? It didn't want to be skewered by the data! In a similar vein, our findings reflect the enduring truth that even the most whimsical-seeming correlations can reveal layers of meaning and mirth upon closer inspection, much like unraveling the layers of a particularly enigmatic onion.

In closing, our study exemplifies the spirit of scholarly inquiry by unearthing a tasty nugget of insight amidst the crossroads of politics and gastronomy. Our results serve as a flavorful reminder that in the realm of research, the most unexpected connections can often have a tantalizing "bun-derlying" truth, waiting to be savored and appreciated.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"The Ballot and the Bun: An Examination of the Correlation between Democratic Votes in Washington State and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we delve into the ever-compelling correlation between political preference and the competitive consumption of encased meats. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study scrutinizes the electorate's support for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State alongside the consumption habits of the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and statistical significance of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1979 to 2020, our findings suggest a strong link between these seemingly distinct phenomena.

Our analysis unveils a curious alignment between the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the hotdogs devoured by the esteemed champion of Nathan's annual gastronomic showdown. This unexpected connection prompts us to ponder, "Are we what we vote, or are we what we eat?" Perhaps our political ideologies and dietary preferences are more entwined than we realize, resulting in a "bundamental" relationship between ballot box decisions and hotdog buns.

Our research offers a whimsical spin on the interplay between political inclinations and epicurean pursuits. As we unravel the peculiar nexus between votes and wieners, let us also savor the humor in such an unexpected correlation, reminding ourselves that even the most improbable connections can prompt a hearty laugh – much like a well-timed dad joke at a backyard barbecue.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Ah, the curious intersection of politics and processed meat – a topic that has undoubtedly left many a scholar scratching their heads and checking their cholesterol levels. In this study, we embark upon an investigation that tantalizingly links the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the astonishing consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. This whimsical correlation has the potential to spark both intellectual curiosity and culinary cravings – truly a feast for the mind and stomach!
As we delve into the realms of statistics and gustatory indulgence, it's essential to maintain a keen sense of humor. After all, who said academic research can't be as delightful as a well-grilled bratwurst? In that spirit, let's savor a relevant dad joke to kick off our scholarly escapade: Why don't hot dogs make good pets? Because they're the wurst! Now, let's relish the journey ahead.
Our quest for correlation and causation takes us deep into the heart of empirical analysis. The data sourced from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia forms the bedrock of our investigation, allowing us to unearth intriguing patterns that defy conventional wisdom and tickle our intellectual taste buds. Our findings unveil a stunning correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the robust association between Democratic votes and hotdog consumption, much like the dependable bond between ketchup and mustard on a ballpark frank.
The relationship between political expression and competitive eating prowess may seem as peculiar as a tuba player at a speed dating event, but our research shines a light on the unexpected harmony between these seemingly disparate domains. It's like discovering a secret ingredient in your grandmother's chili – a dash of electoral influence with a pinch of bun-based bravado.
Now, here's a sizzling mind-teaser: How do you know when a joke becomes a dad joke? When the punchline becomes apparent! Just like the punchline of our study, where we uncover the bun-believable linkage between ballots and buns. Let's continue this academic journey with a thirst for knowledge and an appetite for discovery, all while sprinkling liberal amounts of humor to keep the scholarly atmosphere as light and enjoyable as a summer barbecue.

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the connection between Democratic votes in Washington State and hotdog consumption by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9518823. This correlation indicates a strong positive relationship between the two variables, underscoring a surprising link between political preference and the competitive consumption of cylindrical meat products. It's a pairing more delightful than a hotdog topped with extra relish – a true "wiener" in the world of statistical findings.
Fig. 1 illustrates the close relationship between the volume of Democratic votes and the quantity of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. The scatterplot showcases a trend line that would make any statistician proud, demonstrating the significant association between these unassuming variables. It's like watching a hotdog and a ballot box engage in a dance of correlation, proving that in the world of data, truth can be as strange as fiction.
Undoubtedly, our findings raise important questions about the intersection of political ideology and competitive eating prowess. Could it be that individuals who lean towards the Democratic party are also inclined to relish the thrill of consuming an excessive number of hotdogs in a competitive setting? It's a thought as intriguing as a mystery meat hotdog – one can't help but wonder about the origins and implications of such a curious phenomenon.
The compelling r-squared value of 0.9060799 further underscores the robustness of the relationship between Democratic votes in Washington State and hotdog consumption by the Nathan's champion. This high r-squared value suggests that a significant proportion of the variability in hotdog consumption can be explained by the variation in Democratic votes. It's like the perfect bun-to-hotdog ratio – a harmonious blend of variables that defines the quintessential hotdog experience.
As we digest these remarkable findings, it's essential to appreciate the delightful humor in uncovering such a connection. The statistical significance of p < 0.01 reminds us that even the most improbable correlations can pass the rigorous test of statistical scrutiny. It's like finding a hidden dressing in a mathematical salad – a delightful surprise that adds zest to the scholarly menu.
In conclusion, our research sheds light on the "bundamental" relationship between Democratic votes in Washington State and hotdog consumption by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. As we wrap up our thought-provoking findings, let's savor one last dad joke: Why don't hotdogs ever argue? Because they're on a roll! Indeed, our study showcases that even the most unexpected correlations can take center stage, much like a well-cooked hotdog at a summer barbecue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study provides compelling evidence for the strong correlation between Democratic votes in Washington State and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. It seems that political inclinations and epicurean prowess are more intimately entwined than previously thought, creating a "wiener" of a correlation that's as captivating as a compelling punchline at a dad joke competition. Our findings not only highlight the unexpected harmony between political expressions and competitive eating feats but also serve as a reminder that statistical analysis can unearth delightful surprises akin to finding an unexpected pickle in a statistical salad.

Our conclusion is as firm as a well-grilled bratwurst – no more research is needed in this area. After all, we've already discovered the "relish" connection between ballots and buns, leaving us with no more "bun-bearable" mysteries to solve. It's like reaching the end of a hotdog – there's no need to ketchup, we've mustard all the relevant findings already!

And with that, we bid adieu to this delightful journey of statistical analysis and gastronomic exploration, reminding ourselves that even in the world of serious research, a dash of humor can add flavor to the findings. After all, what's a statistical study without a few delightful puns and dad jokes to pepper the discussion?

So, let's raise a toast – or should I say, a hotdog bun? – to the "bundamental" connection uncovered in our study and savor the knowledge that even the most unexpected correlations can "relish" in the spotlight.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited The Ballot and the Bun: An Examination of the Correlation between Democratic Votes in Washington State and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Gastronomic Politics


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited The Ballot and the Bun: An Examination of the Correlation between Democratic Votes in Washington State and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Gastronomic Democracy


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The Ballot and the Bun: An Examination of the Correlation between Democratic Votes in Washington State and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion with an abstract of In this research paper, we delve into the ever-compelling correlation between political preference and the competitive consumption of encased meats. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study scrutinizes the electorate's support for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State alongside the consumption habits of the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9518823 and statistical significance of p < 0.01 spanning the years 1979 to 2020, our findings suggest a strong link between these seemingly distinct phenomena.
Our analysis unveils a curious alignment between the votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in Washington State and the hotdogs devoured by the esteemed champion of Nathan's annual gastronomic showdown. This unexpected connection prompts us to ponder, "Are we what we vote, or are we what we eat?" Perhaps our political ideologies and dietary preferences are more entwined than we realize, resulting in a "bundamental" relationship between ballot box decisions and hotdog buns.
Our research offers a whimsical spin on the interplay between political inclinations and epicurean pursuits. As we unravel the peculiar nexus between votes and wieners, let us also savor the humor in such an unexpected correlation, reminding ourselves that even the most improbable connections can prompt a hearty laugh – much like a well-timed dad joke at a backyard barbecue.

ChatGPT:

Democratic votes, hotdog consumption, Washington State, Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, correlation, political preference, encased meats, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, statistical significance, Democratic presidential candidate, gastronomic, Nexus between votes and wieners, dietary preferences, political ideologies.

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington
Detailed data title: Total votes cast for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington

Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Detailed data title: Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

Correlation r = 0.9518823 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r2 = 0.9060799 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 90.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington) over the 11 years from 1979 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.4E-6. 0.0000064208591656392900000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.95 in 0.00064% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 155,742 random variables You don't actually need 155 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 10 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 10 because we have two variables measured over a period of 11 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.82, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
19801984198819921996200020042008201220162020
Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington (Total votes)6501937983529335169930371123320124765015102001750850175540017427202369610
Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion (Hotdogs eaten)9.59.5101922.252553.3359687075




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([650193,798352,933516,993037,1123320,1247650,1510200,1750850,1755400,1742720,2369610,])
array_2 = np.array([9.5,9.5,10,19,22.25,25,53.33,59,68,70,75,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Washington"
array_2_name = "Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Big thanks for reviewing!


Correlation ID: 5035 · Black Variable ID: 26042 · Red Variable ID: 500
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0