Report an error
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Texas correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Annual US household spending on pets, toys, and hobbies | r=0.98 | 6yrs | No |
Annual US household spending on housing | r=0.96 | 6yrs | No |
Hydopower energy generated in Nicaragua | r=0.89 | 11yrs | Yes! |
US Tree Nut Consumption per Person | r=0.85 | 6yrs | No |
US household spending on health insurance | r=0.82 | 6yrs | No |
The number of Breweries in the United States | r=0.72 | 8yrs | No |
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Texas 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.)