Yeah, I did that same chart, Mort-Hog...I initially tried to do the raw data, but like you said, it makes more sense to do rank vs. rank, and it's easier to read. I did expect the little cluster of low density states, because I saw that in the data just by looking. I'm actually now a bit curious about how the population density is figured.

I mean, it seems like that particular statistic might really just be the state's population over the land area of the state. However, it's possible that in reality the effective population density in many states might be worse than is implied by that statistic. After all, if you have 1,000,000 people living in an urban high density area of a large, empty state. Technically the population density for the state might look low, when in fact the majority of the people are in a high-density area.

This is pretty obvious when you look at Washington D.C.'s rank. (By the way, it is a federal territory, not a state. It is just land owned by the federal government which is NOT a part of a state, and is not its own state.) Washington D.C. is ONLY an urban area, without any rural areas to skew the density, so it looks a lot worse than the states, when in fact it's probably pretty average for an urban area.

I bet if you found a better way to account for population density you'd get a better correlation. I also wouldn't be surprised if weather was involved...perhaps sun or average temperature.

Edit: Oh, JM kind of beat me to it. Yes, a by-county poll would be much more informative, but also much more information than anyone can really care about. I'm sure it can be summarized in a nice Density Rating for each state that would be much more informative with much less data to work with all at once.

yeah, i am all for splitting from northern california. Sacramento is a joke. i vote part time legislature.

mort... more graphs! they are awesome!

This one paints a little bit more interesting picture. It's based on US census rankings for number of densely populated incorporated areas obtained through wikipedia. It's a rough statistic, but I can't really go county-by-county on my own. The only real outliers are Florida and Texas. Other than that, of course, it's still a very loose correlation, but it's there.

Taxes and regulations in that state as well as counties/cities where the majority of the people in that state live = unhappy. Find some way to quantify this and I bet you find your correlation.

Hmm, that's an interesting point. I'm not sure how to account for that. Possibly take the biggest 10 cities in that state, and calculate the population density only for those population hubs?
Much of the US is vast areas of wasteland, which lowers the population density of certain states is skewed because of it in a non-meaningful way. For example, much of California is the Mojave Desert where (I presume) no-one lives giving it a lower population density than if you just consider the habitable areas.

That particular metric probably has a googleable name.

Edit: Oh wait. I didn't read your second post. You already got there! Nice one.

Well, it should have been easy since it was related to another recent debate here. The Warming fiasco where all of the missing data, leaked emails, and schemes to evade freedom of information act requests were rebutted with statements claiming none of that mattered because the science is settled.

Wouldn't it be a nice little trick if somebody decided to color code those little dots red/blue/purple according to my criteria?

Do you just argue with everyone you find on the street?

I find it odd that you would ask me that, of all people here.

Well it just seems to me that you have made something of a hobby of arguing.
For better or worse.
You know what, this was a stupid idea ignore me.

I rarely "argue" with anyone here. I made fun of some dead rat recently but that's about it.

I actually like rats.

With ketchup.

Just kidding.

If there is one thing I like about Wookie06 it's the fact that he doesn't give a **** what anyone says, he's not changing his mind. I admire that kind of ignorant self confidence.

I learned a long time ago that there isn't any point in trying to discuss conservative values here. I got treated the same way when I was polite and conversational. So now I just kind of Ann Coulter my way through the forums.

I know the feeling, at least you were open minded and polite, I find these qualities are lessening from the liberal consensus.

I think it's hilarious how people separate themselves for the stupidest reasons. You all just lovvvvvve finding reasons to hate each other.

It's easier to be like me and hate everyone by default. You have to give me a reason not to hate you.

Maybe political discussions should be discouraged from this site.

Just looking at the scatterplot I'd say it looks better than anything else we've seen so far.



Okay, I've taken sociology courses. I understand the concept of "I am who I think you think I am." But I don't think I've ever seen anyone consciously adopt that as a guiding principle. What exactly do you get out of behaving in a way that makes other posters' treatment of you appear justified?

Where would you rate me on your like hate scale? You don't have to answer but you could and either return to greatness among the elite or further alienate yourself.



Actually, they're pretty rare now and most here seem to be on the same or similar side so there really isn't a reason to do that. If anything just ban the dissenters such as myself.

Really? Just think internet. This is a fairly trivial forum. An interesting diversion. I took it way too seriously, like others, in the past. Some do now. I've even posted in a rational manner in a thread recently and idiotic conclusions were made of me from well laid out posts expressing valid opinions on the issue. I was treated identically when I posted in a polite, thoughtful manner more inline with my actual physical person as I am treated now. So guess what? Now you get a male Ann Coulter with even more hair on my balls than she has.

It's not a like-hate scale, it's a hate-or-not-hate scale. You'd fall under "not hate."

I think not being a ****ing retard should be discouraged from this site, and life in general.

she has hair on your balls? did you need a skin graft or something. sounds painful.

Also, i live by the "Idiot until proven otherwise" credo. serves me well for the most part.

Then only the conservatives would be left here. No matter how far Massassi's fall from grace should be, I do believe there should be more than three members.

than she has on hers I should have said.

Situation:



Response:



Yeah, there's a disconnect here that you still haven't explained.

Wookie is under the bizarre illusion that blindly being spoonfed his views from Fox News and endlessly repeating the same rhetoric, and then blaming some mysterious 'elite' for his inability to ever engage in rational discussion (occasionally harking back to some fictional past when he supposedly could), somehow makes him 'rebellious'. I certainly hope he isn't under the illusion that he's in any way interesting, as I think we can all predict with reasonable accuracy exactly what he will say in any given situation.

It does, however, give me great pleasure to watch the ingenious ways in which he will twist these talking points to fit virtually any topic whatsoever. It's actually quite an impressive skill. We could probably make some sort of forum game out of it.

Psst! Fellow Massassi Elite members! Don't let on that we currently are playing this game! And have been for some time!

Hm, 41....

I think the so-called Massassi elites need more than a hand job for Christmas

I'm in the massassi conservative party.

Im a little more independant oriented, but with some moderate conservative viewpoints.

Apparently the Massassi Conservative party got deleted. I guess I'll have to join the echoman group.

Maybe i'll join you.