Report an error
Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Number of public school students in 6th grade | r=0.95 | 8yrs | Yes! |
Number of public school students in 7th grade | r=0.95 | 8yrs | No |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Turkmenistan | r=0.94 | 8yrs | No |
Annual US household spending on vehicle purchaes | r=0.91 | 6yrs | No |
American cheese consumption | r=0.86 | 8yrs | No |
Number of Lawyers in the United States | r=0.83 | 8yrs | No |
Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Ohio also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)