Report an error
Votes for Republican Senators in Vermont correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of movies Vin Diesel appeared in | r=0.97 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'superman' | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
Number of times 7 was a winning Mega Millions number | r=0.95 | 6yrs | No |
The number of psychiatrists in Vermont | r=0.92 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'who is donald trump' | r=0.88 | 6yrs | No |
US household spending on personal care products and services | r=0.84 | 7yrs | No |
US household spending on clothin for women | r=0.63 | 7yrs | No |
Disney movies released | r=0.57 | 7yrs | No |
Votes for Republican Senators in Vermont 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.)