First we computed how "red" or "blue" a state was by looking at the percentage of votes given to each party during the 2016 2020 Presidential election.
Then we used Excel's "correlation" function to correlate each trait with how red or blue a state was.
Correlation returns a value between -1 and 1, with 0 being completely uncorrelated.
The "Younger Average Age" one is tricky! Because young people themselves tend to vote blue. But blue states have lower birth rates, and thus fewer young people. Also, keep in mind that people under 18 can't vote.
I thought that was probably the easiest one. Certain kind of behavior among conservatives vs. liberals seems to be pretty universal, which, in turn, influences the demographics. Not going into details, but there's plenty of info and evidence out there.
Nice quiz with some surprising results for folks who have formed distinct but apparently false impressions over time (like myself) maybe based in part on media emphases or distortions. The facts are what they are. Now we get to see all the entertaining "But, but, but . . ." comments.
The most surprising stat was that the Dems had the better economy, at least in my opinion because the current republican agenda has been all about economy
Depends on what you mean by better economy. Democratic states have higher incomes, but greater inequality and higher unemployment. There aren't as many jobs in red states that offer the crazy $300,000+ salaries that are common at places like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. But that doesn't help people who don't have high market value skills. All in all, some people will do better in blue states while other people will do better in red states.
@QM, with respect, I disagree that red states don't offer high paying jobs. It depends a lot on the state. Texas has very skilled employment in just about any sector you can name: energy, finance, medicine, tech. If you consider North Carolina a red state (some would consider it more purple), they have one of the largest tech industries outside of California as well as a lot of banking. Utah is one of the richest states in the country. Hell, even Alabama has one of the best hospitals in the nation at UAB and a bustling aerospace industry in Huntsville. Granted, you might be less lucky in Mississippi or West Virginia. It depends a lot on the state and where you live in the state (urban vs. rural). Notably, most high paying areas of red states tend to vote Democrat at higher rates than the rest of the state.
@QM, I think it's important to note that Republican policy can have just as much of an effect in a 'blue state' as any 'red state' and vice versa. Federal policy influences the whole country and plenty of people vote the opposite of what party their state typically votes for.
@That1 Yes I know, that's why I said 'can have'. For example, there's no doubt that an economic sector like Silicon Valley (which is in a solid blue state) hasn't benefitted from laissez faire capitalism, which is more often espoused by republicans.
Since I don't know much about US politics I solved it asking if the trait in question is more characteristic for an urban or rural population and then go blue for urban cause I know California votes Democrat. Ended up with 13/15.
That's funny, because they're angry at gay people, liberals, trans people, immigrants, women, reproductive rights, equal pay, minorities, colleges, and avocado toast. Doesn't sound very happy to me.
Those are the miserable bottom decile folks who have nothing better to do. The happiness does not belong to the select few you interact with on social media. Read this again from the other side of the aisle and it still holds true.
Define ‘happiness’. If access to better higher education, job opportunities and healthcare are used as metrics it’s definitely going to be in favour of the blue states.
Edit: you might want to update an 11 year old study.
You clearly didn't take the Happiness related quizzes posted recently. It's self reported.
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that people's self-described happiness is more related to an individual's outlook on life rather than being tied to work/wealth/healthcare.
I know self-reported data should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, people lie. But, when it comes to happiness? You just have to ask people. I can imagine this now. "How can you be happy? Our data shows you have a low income, eat french fries, and haven't seen a doctor in a year". It imposes the values of the surveyor over the individual. Its deeply insulting if you think about it. If someone told me I'm not happy because of some external factor, I'd tell them where to shove it. Then I'd tell them to read some stoic philosophy. Happiness is a state of mind.
It is hard to compare happiness. I could imagine that a housewife from a patriarchal culture would say she is happy, because she was brought up under the notion that being committed to family equals happiness, regardless of what she really feels. The same man may consider himself happy one day and unhappy the next day, or even the next minute, based on something that happened in his life. As for myself, I would reject the question outright but maybe I'm just being philosophical. Happiness is an ambiguous concept.
@Quizmaster That's true as far as one person goes, but the problem comes in when you try to compare what different people self-report. They're not just giving a binary yes or no to "are you happy?", they're giving a numerical answer, which means two people with more or less the same state of mind could give different responses because they're using different internal scales to try to put a number on how happy they are.
For example, people in communities with higher rates of depression might be more aware of how low one can go, so to speak, and place a higher value on their own happiness; whereas in a more jolly community, you might construe being slightly less happy than your peers as a huge deficit. Same states of mind, different context leads to different self-reported figures.
And that's not to say that any of those people would be wrong to say they're happy or not happy, but it's not very informative to use that as data to compare different places' levels of happiness.
I can tell you right now, while I am very thankful for higher education, it did NOT make me happier. That might just be a social sciences thing though…
The misconception I too fell for was that young people lean Democratic, so it must be blue that's younger. AND, it really is true that the Democratic party is younger than the Republican party (per Pew Research Center). However, what's asked in the quiz is whether the blue states themselves are younger, which is not the case partly due to blue states' lower fertility rates.
This is based on whether a state went "blue" or "red" (i.e., whether their electoral college votes went to the Democrats or the Republicans) in the 2016 presidential election. Since no states went to the Green party or the Libertarians, it wouldn't be possible without changing the basis of the quiz.
I think a lot of these differences arise from the fact that the big cities are democratic and rural areas are republican. And it's clear that for example there are more homeless people in cities, and a higher median household income. You can't conclude from this quiz that, for example, democrats can't handle the homelessness problem, or democrats make stronger economies.
The only answer that shocked me was the red states are young then the blue states. Everything else was either easy to know or it was something that I can see both party’s states having.
I feel like Americans are born and slapped on the butt with an R or a D and then go home and put in their cribs to watch a mobile of little elephants or donkeys floating above them. Branded for life as part of one of two parties. It's so engrained in all you do and not in a good way always. It seems more and more to be less about being "American" warts and all (and yes there are many warts) than being GOP or Democrat. If you google someone, you know their party affiliation and how they voted or were at least registered to vote. In Canada for example, yes people are passionately for one party over another many times but you aren't labelled as such in your daily life. You wouldn't necessarily know their political affiliation unless you knew them or asked. You couldn't necessarily tell either by where they live. We don't say that people live in a "red province" or whatever. Few places in Canada have been consistently one party over the other every time. Just observations here.
That doesn't apply to me. My mother was Republican and my father Democrat, as were my grandmother and grandfather who lived nearby. It's probably why I consider myself a moderate and I've voted for members of both parties as well as third parties in my voting lifetime.
And I feel like you are making a gross and inaccurate generalization about Americans. It is a particularly tense time here politically, so things are exacerbated. But if you look at Mississippi, maybe the "reddest" state in the Union, 40% of its votes in 2016 went to Hillary Clinton. In Massachusetts, maybe the "bluest" state, 33% of votes went to Trump. And people's allegiances change over time. Many conservatives are voting for Biden this time around. Last time around, many former Democrats (especially in unions) switched to Trump. Moreover, a Republican in Manhattan very likely has different priorities than a Republican in rural Arkansas does. The two parties themselves contain many factions and varying political beliefs. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden differ considerably on many issues. As do Mitt Romney and Donald Trump. Americans can think just fine, thank you. We don't get assigned a letter at birth and never revisit the issue.
To most of us foreigners, the United States looks like a crazy reality show as the news don't show the daily lives of Americans and the last few years have been especially polarizing. So many people here believe that the average American is a racist, gun-wielding, uneducated Trump fan. We don't like to be stereotyped by Americans, but so much of what we "know" about America is stereotypes.
I know there is a spectrum beliefs in terms of Dems and GOP but still states are labelled as "red" or "blue" states and that doesn't change as often as it does in Canada, as an example. My point is that here in Canada we would never label a Province as "red" or "blue" or "orange" because it is not nearly as frequently the same colour two elections in a row. That's really all I meant. You couldn't make this quiz about Canada cause the answers would change every few years more so than they would in America. My assumptions are logical and justifiable based on what we see on American TV and in the media and Americans I know personally and even in Jet Punk quizzes!
I observe a similar polarization in Germany, although to a lesser degree because our "Trumpists" hover at around 10% of the vote. But everything tends to be politicized nowadays and the us vs. them attitude is getting stronger.
From a non-american, its so easy to see by looking at the comments here why you will never get along lol. stop making politics your identities and maybe you will shoot and run over each other less
As an American I agree. We should stop hating each other and go back to hating arrogant Belgians who believe dumb stereotypes about Americans and love mimes.
Interesting how the weight of guesses is very much "good = Democrat", except in the singular case of homelessness: 72% of people have expected Democrat-run states to have higher levels of homelessness. Knowing next to nothing about American politics, I wonder why that would be.
The median income question is very deceiving because the Republican party is known to have the richer people but going by the median eliminates the richest which are often republicans and the poorest which are often democrats. Republicans do have a higher average household income. You can look at the income section in this article for more information.
At least in my experience, any demographic data about the United States tends to prefer median income over average income because of the massive income inequality here. While not perfect, it seems to me that it's considered "a more accurate representation" of a demographic to use median income, because that will genuinely be closer to the average person's experience than the mean income will be (as the mean invariably gets superinflated by the existence of millionaires and billionaires).
Lots of things. For one, we updated to use 2020 election data instead of 2016 data.
We also removed a question about Covid which no longer made sense. At the time of the original quiz (October 2020) the blue states had a lot more Covid deaths. This was due to New York having an early outbreak and a handful of blue state governors making some boneheaded decisions about nursing homes.
In 2024, it's impossible to say whether red states or blue states had more Covid deaths. Red states are have more obesity and vaccine hesitancy. But blue states are older, which is by far the most important risk factor. Most importantly, I don't think high-quality data exists.
It's kinda amusing how much discourse this generates despite virtually none of the correlation coefficients being particularly strong. Like education, incarceration, and income are the only ones at or above 0.69. Some aren't even above 0.2.
From what I know about correlation coefficients, these are not very strong, especially with a small sample size of 50. And I believe outliers strongly affect r values, so there could be a few states skewing things. Most of the discussion seems to be attempting to draw causal links between correlated things, which is certainly interesting but I take it with a grain of salt.
these might be "strong" correlations in the sense that they're statistically significant, but in some of these cases the actual effect size is pretty weak; for example 5) and 15) which are both less than 0.2, and as a general rule of thumb in statistics we consider that low effect size.
I've seen that "strong" can kind of refer to both measures in general usage, and that can lead to confusion in cases like this
Are they statistically significant? My stats knowledge is basic but I thought significance was based on a different value/calculation. Effect size is the term I was looking for though! Most of these correlations seem quite weak in that sense, let alone having strong causal ties.
I like the idea but at the same time it pushes the narrative of "Red" and "Blue" state that ultimately incentivize people to not vote, under the assumption that their vote doesn't matter.
You could have simply worded the title differently.
I am unsurprised by nearly any of these, but I admit to having to guess at the last one. Sunlight received per square meter seems like it should be pretty much identical from state to state, with the exception of differences due to latitude (Alaska in winter, for instance). While all of the other 14 questions might get you to thinking about the values of your average red-stater or blue-stater, I struggle to conceive of how party affiliation might affect the sun... or vice versa, I suppose. Just spitballing here, but was this the replacement for the COVID question from last time?
I find it interesting how people don't think about the inequality. My general rule was urban = democratic, and figured that the inequality would be larger in urban settings since that's where the richest are while still containing poorer people.
I was very surprised by the average age (along with most people it would seem), since I would expect cities to attract a younger population but maybe retired people also live here more or maybe the fact that people live longer in these states accounts for it? I would love to see some more in-depth analysis of this if there are some interesting reasons for this counter-intuitive fact.
Great quiz, really eye-opening for some of the questions.
QM wants this quiz to get people to examine their biases and then there is me, a non-american who got 13/15 just by going with the stereotypes. So, yeah.. this quiz pretty much confirmed all my biases, sorry QM.
(I only missed the average age and more people moving in than out - the first makes sense when you think about it, the second is imo very surprising.)
I got 12. On all of those I got wrong I first went with the correct answers, before going against my gut and trying to reason with myself that the one I chose was right. The youngest age one really got me because in general, younger people tend to vote blue, but then I realize that republicans, in general, tend to have higher birth rates and people under 18 can’t vote.
I'm surprised more people move into Republican states than out. Where I live, people tend to move out of rural areas into cities. And Republican states are generally rural, so I got tricked. 14/15
I think a big part of this is post-Covid a lot of people have been moving away from states like California and New York to states like Texas and Florida due to less taxes and the ability to work remotely with the same companies in their previous states. But a lot of these people are moving to places like Austin, Dallas, Tampa, etc. which are still urban (like you said), but just so happen to be in a "red state".
The happiest state question should have its source updated, basically all happiest state rankings for 2023-2024 show blue states rank much higher than red ones. It doesn't make sense to have one question randomly be about 2005-2008.
There may or may not be a more recent, high-quality survey, but that doesn't mean that one you are using is still accurate. It certainly seems questionable to apply it to data from the 2020 election after all that happened in those intervening years.
I suspect asking that question in Obama's second term would give a different result than asking it in Bush's second. Add Trump into the mix with all of his grievance politics and who knows what comes out?
If bad data is what you're trying to avoid, I'm not sure how the choice here solves the problem.
First we computed how "red" or "blue" a state was by looking at the percentage of votes given to each party during the
20162020 Presidential election.Then we used Excel's "correlation" function to correlate each trait with how red or blue a state was.
Correlation returns a value between -1 and 1, with 0 being completely uncorrelated.
Edit: you might want to update an 11 year old study.
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that people's self-described happiness is more related to an individual's outlook on life rather than being tied to work/wealth/healthcare.
For example, people in communities with higher rates of depression might be more aware of how low one can go, so to speak, and place a higher value on their own happiness; whereas in a more jolly community, you might construe being slightly less happy than your peers as a huge deficit. Same states of mind, different context leads to different self-reported figures.
And that's not to say that any of those people would be wrong to say they're happy or not happy, but it's not very informative to use that as data to compare different places' levels of happiness.
Don't quite understand only 15% got the one about average age correctly. Rural Red states have quite high birth rates.
We also removed a question about Covid which no longer made sense. At the time of the original quiz (October 2020) the blue states had a lot more Covid deaths. This was due to New York having an early outbreak and a handful of blue state governors making some boneheaded decisions about nursing homes.
In 2024, it's impossible to say whether red states or blue states had more Covid deaths. Red states are have more obesity and vaccine hesitancy. But blue states are older, which is by far the most important risk factor. Most importantly, I don't think high-quality data exists.
I've seen that "strong" can kind of refer to both measures in general usage, and that can lead to confusion in cases like this
You could have simply worded the title differently.
I was very surprised by the average age (along with most people it would seem), since I would expect cities to attract a younger population but maybe retired people also live here more or maybe the fact that people live longer in these states accounts for it? I would love to see some more in-depth analysis of this if there are some interesting reasons for this counter-intuitive fact.
Great quiz, really eye-opening for some of the questions.
(I only missed the average age and more people moving in than out - the first makes sense when you think about it, the second is imo very surprising.)
1. Democrats are city-based
2. Democrats have higher income -> eat less fast food
3. Republicans are less city-based -> smaller communities -> social gatherings such as church play a more significant role
4. Democrats have higher income
5. Democrats higher income -> more income inequality
6. Democrats are more educated
7. Democrats higher income, better education -> viable alternatives to support themselves and family
8. Democrats higher income (and city-based) -> pay higher taxes
9. The President in 2005-2008 was Republican.
10. Democrats city-based -> higher unemployment -> higher homelessness
11. Democrats city-based -> more immigration -> more people to move out, less space to move in
12. Democrats city-based -> more immigration
13. Republicans less city-based -> more agriculture
14. Democrats city-based -> more immigration -> more adults, less children
15. Republicans are less city-based -> more agriculture -> more need for sunlight.
But ranking which is used is remarkable for both the extremely large sample size and for directly asking people how happy they are.
I suspect asking that question in Obama's second term would give a different result than asking it in Bush's second. Add Trump into the mix with all of his grievance politics and who knows what comes out?
If bad data is what you're trying to avoid, I'm not sure how the choice here solves the problem.