Report an error
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Kansas correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Google searches for 'cat memes' | r=0.99 | 6yrs | No |
Google searches for 'two day shipping' | r=0.99 | 6yrs | Yes! |
Total runs scored in the World Series | r=0.96 | 8yrs | No |
Google searches for 'ice bath' | r=0.95 | 6yrs | Yes! |
The number of movies Zac Efron appeared in | r=0.94 | 6yrs | No |
Runs Scored by the losing team in the World Series | r=0.86 | 8yrs | No |
Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series | r=0.85 | 8yrs | No |
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Kansas 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.)