While it looks like poverty rate is more correlated, idk how you look at those maps and see anything but an obvious political correlation, albeit not perfect. What do the stats say?
"Among 3110 U.S counties and Washington, D.C., change in life expectancy at the county level was negatively associated with Republican share of the vote in the 2020 Presidential election"
idk how you look at those maps and see anything but an obvious political correlation
Because I have eyes and a brain. In the first map (life expectancy), almost the entire north half of the US is marked as "high", and the "low" is almost entirely clustered in the south east. When I look at the political map, the blue parts are almost entirely on the coasts with some scattering in metros and a deep blue clump right in the middle of the south east again. In what universe would that be a political correlation? The maps are entirely different.
Also your stats are not very convincing, considering they are measuring something entirely different. Comparing the percent change in life expectancy from 1980 - 2014 to the 2020 election results seems pretty useless. Look at how vastly different the presidential voting map is since 1980: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/19...
A better correlation might be percent change in party voting vs percent change in life expectancy. And even then, how long does it take for policy to affect life expectancy numbers?
How about: a relatively large portion of the country is left behind by federal policies and are willing to support whatever crackpot promises good things?
Comments
Umm... No, there isn't. Look at the entire midwest/central US. See these two maps:
* From the OP: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsuBjJeaQAAv8EE?format=jpg&name=...
* 2020 presidential: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/20...
It's much more correlated with:
* Poverty rate: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2018/comm/acs-...
The color choices of the original map appear to have intended to lead you into thinking a certain way, which appears to have worked.
While it looks like poverty rate is more correlated, idk how you look at those maps and see anything but an obvious political correlation, albeit not perfect. What do the stats say?
"Among 3110 U.S counties and Washington, D.C., change in life expectancy at the county level was negatively associated with Republican share of the vote in the 2020 Presidential election"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209240/
Because I have eyes and a brain. In the first map (life expectancy), almost the entire north half of the US is marked as "high", and the "low" is almost entirely clustered in the south east. When I look at the political map, the blue parts are almost entirely on the coasts with some scattering in metros and a deep blue clump right in the middle of the south east again. In what universe would that be a political correlation? The maps are entirely different.
Also your stats are not very convincing, considering they are measuring something entirely different. Comparing the percent change in life expectancy from 1980 - 2014 to the 2020 election results seems pretty useless. Look at how vastly different the presidential voting map is since 1980: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/19...
A better correlation might be percent change in party voting vs percent change in life expectancy. And even then, how long does it take for policy to affect life expectancy numbers?
How about: a relatively large portion of the country is left behind by federal policies and are willing to support whatever crackpot promises good things?