> 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), alm

> 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/b9/1980_United_States_presidential_election_results_map_by_county.svg/555px-1980_United_States_presidential_election_results_map_by_county.svg.png 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?