Report an error
Votes for Democratic Senators in Florida correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of insurance claims and policy processing clerks in Florida | r=0.97 | 6yrs | Yes! |
The number of septic tank servicers and sewer pipe cleaners in Florida | r=0.93 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Age of Miss Earth Peagant winner | r=0.88 | 6yrs | No |
Number of competing nations in the Summer Olympics | r=0.86 | 8yrs | No |
Google searches for 'stop hitting yourself' | r=0.85 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Number of times 3 was a winning Mega Millions number | r=0.81 | 6yrs | No |
The number of movies Tom Hanks appeared in | r=0.8 | 14yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Elise | r=0.71 | 15yrs | No |
Patents granted in the US | r=0.7 | 15yrs | No |
The number of movies Susan Sarandon appeared in | r=0.58 | 15yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Florida 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.)