[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skirts per square meter. Tho Greece is surprisingly low.
 
Space aliens per 1000 blond female humans of hybrid baby bearing age.
 
number of stereotypes per minute successfully subverted.
 
I can easily see how to create compromises between all the countries here. All except one.
cff7b4249.jpg
 
First sink their fleet then use the compromise method for the rest.

What the heck is that sticking out of Brunei? Might need to sink their fleet too just to get the right angles off the map.
 
World map of all landlocked countries.

QCy9RjF.png
 
An interesting graph that dispels a common American political myth. It's often noted here that poorer states tend to vote Republican, which would mean both voting against one's own interests and a certain degree of hypocrisy (Ie, the people who receive the most government benefits and pay the least taxes voting to cut taxes and benefits).

That is misleading. The difference between California and Alabama is not how the poor vote - in both cases they vote mostly for the Democrats. The difference is how the rich and middle income people vote. They vote for the Democrats in California, but in Alabama (and indeed in most US states) they vote Republican.

pewmaps.0.png
 
So Idaho and Wyoming are the only true Republican states? Shocking.
 
I think 2008 was a particularly bad year for Republicans, with the fallout of the financial crisis and Bush's ultra low approval rating. Maybe in other years we'd see a couple more states where the poor voted Republican - but none of those would be in the South, and the total number would still be tiny, that's for sure.
 
How do they determine who is rich, poor, or middle income for those? Is it based on the same dollar amounts, or on what people can actually buy with that income?

The states that lean most heavily towards the Democrats tend to have higher costs of living (in particular rent tends to be higher, because land values are higher near water and in more densely populated areas), so much of their population is effectively poorer than income data would indicate.
 
The states that lean most heavily towards the Democrats tend to have higher costs of living (in particular rent tends to be higher, because land values are higher near water and in more densely populated areas), so much of their population is effectively poorer than income data would indicate.

I would disagree. If inhabitants of such areas would go to areas with lower costs of living, the wealth compared to the locals would be fairly obvious.
 
So? Most of them would not be able to keep their higher incomes if they moved, and cannot afford regular trips to places where their money would go further. Many of them just don't want to move.
 
How do they determine who is rich, poor, or middle income for those? Is it based on the same dollar amounts, or on what people can actually buy with that income?

The states that lean most heavily towards the Democrats tend to have higher costs of living (in particular rent tends to be higher, because land values are higher near water and in more densely populated areas), so much of their population is effectively poorer than income data would indicate.

I don't know, and I'm not disputing what you're saying. But it doesn't change at all the points those graphs were making. If you take a random rich guy in Alabama, the odds of him voting Republican are damn near 100%. In California or NY, not at all.

Some 80% of the people I socialize with in Texas and Louisiana vote Republican (in Louisiana it's probably 100%). When I was in California a slight majority of the people I socialized with voted Democrat.

So the geographic divide is really not about how poor people vote, but how middle and upper income people vote.
 
And a chart that scientifically demonstrates why American Football is unbelievably boring:

Screen_Shot_2014-10-09_at_2.07.03_PM.0.png


Tailgating is a lot of fun. But watching the game itself... dear God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom