Report an error
Votes for Republican Senators in Oklahoma correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Number of times 11 was a winning Mega Millions number | r=0.98 | 6yrs | Yes! |
The number of transportation, storage, and distribution managers in Oklahoma | r=0.98 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'funny cat videos' | r=0.97 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'how to hide a body' | r=0.97 | 6yrs | No |
Petroluem consumption in Lebanon | r=0.85 | 15yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Republican Senators in Oklahoma 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.)