[justin66]

I'm not sure why you'd want to do that, but given the country's current demographics, there's an obvious problem. "Democratic" areas are also to a large extent the areas with money, and population density, and crime, and industry, and higher education, and all sorts of variables you'd want to be able to control for. This enables all sorts of deceptive political infographics...

[hackuser]

> "Democratic" areas are also to a large extent the areas with money, and population density, and crime, and industry, and higher education, and all sorts of variables you'd want to be able to control for.

Maybe you wouldn't control for them; for example, some of those variables may be consequences of being Democratic areas. I'd guess higher education is, as the GOP often wants to cut funding for it.

[adventured]

Consequences such as Democrats ruling over the most violent and highest murder rate areas (both per capita) of the nation for decades? Along with Democrats controlling the areas of the nation with by far the highest infant mortality rates. There's no question it's a direct consequence of their governance.

[hackuser]

I'm sure there are positive and negative consequences to both parties' governance; it would be interesting and valuable to discuss, learn about, and figure out.

That's not what the parent comment is doing, unfortunately. It's sad that yet another HN discussion is derailed.