Report an error
Votes for Republican Senators in Mississippi correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Montenegro | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
Worldwide Count of Nokia Employees | r=0.95 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'how to get to antartica' | r=0.93 | 6yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'thats what she said' meme | r=0.92 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the 'pork and beans' meme | r=0.87 | 6yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Valentin | r=0.79 | 15yrs | No |
Air pollution in Natchez, Mississippi | r=0.78 | 7yrs | No |
The number of movies Clint Eastwood appeared in | r=0.69 | 14yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Dayana | r=0.69 | 15yrs | No |
US Annual Tax Revenue | r=0.55 | 15yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Mississippi 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.)