Report an error
Votes for Democratic Senators in California correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb's stock price (BMY) | r=0.99 | 6yrs | No |
| The number of authors in California | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'matt levine' | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
| Hydopower energy generated in Senegal | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
| The number of petroleum engineers in California | r=0.98 | 6yrs | Yes! |
| The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in California | r=0.97 | 6yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'cat memes' | r=0.97 | 6yrs | No |
| Annual US household spending on shoes | r=0.95 | 7yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in California 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.)