Nation’s Most Overweight, Obese States Voted for McCain

[PunditP]

When it comes to weight and politics, the latest presidential election offers us some food for thought. One particularly interesting fact is that, across the nation, the states that voted for Sen. John McCain in the general election tended to be home to the highest percentage of overweight and obese people when compared to the states that voted for Barack Obama – and not just by a small margin.

In examining the statistics at StateMaster.com, one finds that, of the ten most overweight and obese states, only one – Michigan – voted for Obama. What’s more, the figures on the other end are just as skewed. When it comes to the nation’s ten least overweight and obese states, Utah is the only one that went for McCain. But before one can begin to digest the implications of this statistical morsel, an important point ought to be made.

First, it should be noted that it would absurd to think that being overweight or obese causes people to vote for McCain (or to dislike Obama). Indeed, just because there is a correlation between the weight of a state’s citizens and that state’s presidential preference, it doesn’t mean that either variable influenced the other. However, there is a statistically significant relationship between them – even if, yes, the percentages are close. Consider this, the average rate of overweight and obese citizens in each of the states McCain won was 57.67%, while the average rate in the state’s Obama won was 54.9%. Although this difference of 2.77% might sound minuscule, when you look at how the red and blue states ranked compared to each other, the correlation becomes much more obvious.

For example, if you assign each state an ‘obesity number’ based on it’s ranking in the list below, with West Virginia, the nation’s most overweight and obese state, given a 50… Alabama a 49… down to Massachusetts, the nation’s trimmest state, given a 1 – and then compared the average obesity number given to states that voted for McCain to the average number given to those that voted for Obama, one sees a telling correlation: the average red state scored a 33.6 while the average blue state scored a 19.1. This is substantial considering that if there were no correlation between a state’s rate of overweight and obese citizens and their voting preference, you would expect the average obesity number of both red and blue states to be around 25.

For all you amateur statisticians out there, and for those who are quick to point out the crudeness of the ‘obesity number’ illustration, you may be comforted to know that in terms of the percentages listed below, the differences between the sample means of both the red and blue states, in comparison to the national mean, were both statistically significant (p < .01). This of course means that it is less than 1% likely that the distribution of the red and blue states in the list below is due to chance, assuming that the rate of overweight and obese citizens has nothing to do with voting preferences.

Upon contemplating these facts, however, one might very naturally and rapidly come to wonder, “So what?” At least I did. For me, the obvious question is why did the heavier states tend to vote for McCain, and the trimmer ones for Obama, if not by chance? While the answer to this question clearly requires quite a bit more than correlation statistics, StateMaster can help point us in the right direction. StateMaster does this by allowing us to see what other metrics are correlated with states’ choices for president in 2008.

Although failing to truly “explain” the correlation between weight and states’ presidential voting preferences, these similar correlations for other important metrics help ‘fill out the picture,’ so to speak. For example, look at how the charts for education (percentage of citizens attaining a bachelors degree) and economic prosperity (perhaps best illustrated by home values) compare to the list below. StateMaster’s statistics show that high rates of overweight and obese citizens are also strongly correlated with low levels of educational achievement and below average levels of economic success, as measured by home values. As for exactly why states with these challenges tended to vote for McCain in the 2008 presidential election is still something that can definitely be explored and discussed much further.

Despite only being able to scratch the surface of this issue, I hope to have at least demonstrated how awesome sites like StateMaster.com offer a window into examining important political, social and economic issues simply by compiling and ranking states based on vital statistical metrics.

For more on John McCain, try my McCain IQ quizhttp://www.punditpolitics.com/political_iq_tests_center.htmhttp://www.punditpolitics.com/political_iq_tests_center.htm.​

 

[jfuh]

When it comes to weight and politics, the latest presidential election offers us some food for thought. One particularly interesting fact is that, across the nation, the states that voted for Sen. John McCain in the general election tended to be home to the highest percentage of overweight and obese people when compared to the states that voted for Barack Obama – and not just by a small margin.

In examining the statistics at StateMaster.com, one finds that, of the ten most overweight and obese states, only one – Michigan – voted for Obama. What’s more, the figures on the other end are just as skewed. When it comes to the nation’s ten least overweight and obese states, Utah is the only one that went for McCain. But before one can begin to digest the implications of this statistical morsel, an important point ought to be made.

First, it should be noted that it would absurd to think that being overweight or obese causes people to vote for McCain (or to dislike Obama). Indeed, just because there is a correlation between the weight of a state’s citizens and that state’s presidential preference, it doesn’t mean that either variable influenced the other. However, there is a statistically significant relationship between them – even if, yes, the percentages are close. Consider this, the average rate of overweight and obese citizens in each of the states McCain won was 57.67%, while the average rate in the state’s Obama won was 54.9%. Although this difference of 2.77% might sound minuscule, when you look at how the red and blue states ranked compared to each other, the correlation becomes much more obvious.

For example, if you assign each state an ‘obesity number’ based on it’s ranking in the list below, with West Virginia, the nation’s most overweight and obese state, given a 50… Alabama a 49… down to Massachusetts, the nation’s trimmest state, given a 1 – and then compared the average obesity number given to states that voted for McCain to the average number given to those that voted for Obama, one sees a telling correlation: the average red state scored a 33.6 while the average blue state scored a 19.1. This is substantial considering that if there were no correlation between a state’s rate of overweight and obese citizens and their voting preference, you would expect the average obesity number of both red and blue states to be around 25.

For all you amateur statisticians out there, and for those who are quick to point out the crudeness of the ‘obesity number’ illustration, you may be comforted to know that in terms of the percentages listed below, the differences between the sample means of both the red and blue states, in comparison to the national mean, were both statistically significant (p < .01). This of course means that it is less than 1% likely that the distribution of the red and blue states in the list below is due to chance, assuming that the rate of overweight and obese citizens has nothing to do with voting preferences.

Upon contemplating these facts, however, one might very naturally and rapidly come to wonder, “So what?” At least I did. For me, the obvious question is why did the heavier states tend to vote for McCain, and the trimmer ones for Obama, if not by chance? While the answer to this question clearly requires quite a bit more than correlation statistics, StateMaster can help point us in the right direction. StateMaster does this by allowing us to see what other metrics are correlated with states’ choices for president in 2008.

Although failing to truly “explain” the correlation between weight and states’ presidential voting preferences, these similar correlations for other important metrics help ‘fill out the picture,’ so to speak. For example, look at how the charts for education (percentage of citizens attaining a bachelors degree) and economic prosperity (perhaps best illustrated by home values) compare to the list below. StateMaster’s statistics show that high rates of overweight and obese citizens are also strongly correlated with low levels of educational achievement and below average levels of economic success, as measured by home values. As for exactly why states with these challenges tended to vote for McCain in the 2008 presidential election is still something that can definitely be explored and discussed much further.

Despite only being able to scratch the surface of this issue, I hope to have at least demonstrated how awesome sites like StateMaster.com offer a window into examining important political, social and economic issues simply by compiling and ranking states based on vital statistical metrics.

For more on John McCain, try my McCain IQ quiz.​

Compare that to this graph

I think I see a trend :mrgreen::mrgreen: Just for kicks I wonder if there is an IQ and religious contrast as well.

 

[sazerac]

Interesting.

Americans are becoming more obese and they are becoming more affluent.

Somehow this combination is making us smarter and better able to make the correct decisions in political races.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule as Michael Moore reminds us.

 

[Hatuey]

Interesting.

Americans are becoming more obese and they are becoming more affluent.

Somehow this combination is making us smarter and better able to make the correct decisions in political races.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule as Michael Moore reminds us.

Or it could be that all the dumb****s who don't know why they're still fat even though they're on the McDonald's health menu vote Republican.

 

[sazerac]

Or it could be that all the dumb****s who don't know why they're still fat even though they're on the McDonald's health menu vote Republican.

But clearly if they voted for McCain this indicates that they are not gullible sheep who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

More Affluence = More Carbs = More intelligence to make the right decisions, unless you are Michael Moore or Rosie O'Donnell

 

[obvious Child]

But clearly if they voted for McCain this indicates that they are not gullible sheep who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

That could be said for both candidates. Those who bought the Obama is a leftist are now being showed he's nothing of the sort. Did they think for themselves? No. Did they look at the Harper memo? No.

And both voters failed to think for themselves in looking at the spending plans.

 

[UtahBill]

But clearly if they voted for McCain this indicates that they are not gullible sheep who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

More Affluence = More Carbs = More intelligence to make the right decisions, unless you are Michael Moore or Rosie O'Donnell

great, fat porn!!! that is disgusting...

 

[Keorythe]

Hey guys, I hate to break it to you but have you ever actually seen how they come up with these "obese" statistics?

Its not done by medical records.

Its not done by a house to house poll.

Its not even done by scientific method.

Its done by driving around and guestimating the number of fat people the observer see's in the downtown area.

/sarcasm Very scientific if you ask me.

On top of that the tax data doesn't add in cost of living and wage variables, business taxation, or social welfare expenditures. This should have been obvious the second you saw Rhode Island, California, and New Hampshire on the "give more" side.

But hey, junk science is the "in" thing these days. Looking forward to someone coming up with an IQ statistic.

 

[jfuh]

Hey guys, I hate to break it to you but have you ever actually seen how they come up with these "obese" statistics?

Its not done by medical records.

Its not done by a house to house poll.

Its not even done by scientific method.

Its done by driving around and guestimating the number of fat people the observer see's in the downtown area.

Actually given that more urban areas or town centers where people go to to mingle, or conduct business would be a decent sampling.

On top of that the tax data doesn't add in cost of living and wage variables, business taxation, or social welfare expenditures. This should have been obvious the second you saw Rhode Island, California, and New Hampshire on the "give more" side.

This is the source of that tax chart
The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005
Go ahead and do your own calculations and tell us which states actually do take more or give more.

But hey, junk science is the "in" thing these days. Looking forward to someone coming up with an IQ statistic.

What state are you from :mrgreen:

 

[Kandahar]

I agree that education is the key variable here. More educated states tend to be less overweight, and they also tend to be more Democratic.

Additionally, there is the fact that Southern cuisine is all about deep-frying stuff, which needless to say, isn't very healthy. So it's partially a coincidence that most of the red states are overweight. If you ignore the South, the correlation between red/blue and obesity is much smaller.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Dumb people eat things that are bad for them. They also vote for McCain.

 

[sazerac]

Dumb people eat things that are bad for them. They also vote for McCain.

Oh don't start that crap.

Every exit poll study shows that democrats and republicans have equal education and equal income.

 

[Jessica]

I blame Paula Deen and her fascination/dependency of mayonnaise.

 

[TheNextEra]

Every exit poll study shows that democrats and republicans have equal education and equal income.

Not agreeing with the premise that Fat people vote for McCain, but exit polls are not reliable either.

Remember Kerry won in 04 according to exit polls.

 

[1069]

When it comes to weight and politics, the latest presidential election offers us some food for thought. One particularly interesting fact is that, across the nation, the states that voted for Sen. John McCain in the general election tended to be home to the highest percentage of overweight and obese people when compared to the states that voted for Barack Obama – and not just by a small margin.

In examining the statistics at StateMaster.com, one finds that, of the ten most overweight and obese states, only one – Michigan – voted for Obama. What’s more, the figures on the other end are just as skewed. When it comes to the nation’s ten least overweight and obese states, Utah is the only one that went for McCain. But before one can begin to digest the implications of this statistical morsel, an important point ought to be made.

First, it should be noted that it would absurd to think that being overweight or obese causes people to vote for McCain (or to dislike Obama). Indeed, just because there is a correlation between the weight of a state’s citizens and that state’s presidential preference, it doesn’t mean that either variable influenced the other. However, there is a statistically significant relationship between them – even if, yes, the percentages are close. Consider this, the average rate of overweight and obese citizens in each of the states McCain won was 57.67%, while the average rate in the state’s Obama won was 54.9%. Although this difference of 2.77% might sound minuscule, when you look at how the red and blue states ranked compared to each other, the correlation becomes much more obvious.

For example, if you assign each state an ‘obesity number’ based on it’s ranking in the list below, with West Virginia, the nation’s most overweight and obese state, given a 50… Alabama a 49… down to Massachusetts, the nation’s trimmest state, given a 1 – and then compared the average obesity number given to states that voted for McCain to the average number given to those that voted for Obama, one sees a telling correlation: the average red state scored a 33.6 while the average blue state scored a 19.1. This is substantial considering that if there were no correlation between a state’s rate of overweight and obese citizens and their voting preference, you would expect the average obesity number of both red and blue states to be around 25.

For all you amateur statisticians out there, and for those who are quick to point out the crudeness of the ‘obesity number’ illustration, you may be comforted to know that in terms of the percentages listed below, the differences between the sample means of both the red and blue states, in comparison to the national mean, were both statistically significant (p < .01). This of course means that it is less than 1% likely that the distribution of the red and blue states in the list below is due to chance, assuming that the rate of overweight and obese citizens has nothing to do with voting preferences.

Upon contemplating these facts, however, one might very naturally and rapidly come to wonder, “So what?” At least I did. For me, the obvious question is why did the heavier states tend to vote for McCain, and the trimmer ones for Obama, if not by chance? While the answer to this question clearly requires quite a bit more than correlation statistics, StateMaster can help point us in the right direction. StateMaster does this by allowing us to see what other metrics are correlated with states’ choices for president in 2008.

Although failing to truly “explain” the correlation between weight and states’ presidential voting preferences, these similar correlations for other important metrics help ‘fill out the picture,’ so to speak. For example, look at how the charts for education (percentage of citizens attaining a bachelors degree) and economic prosperity (perhaps best illustrated by home values) compare to the list below. StateMaster’s statistics show that high rates of overweight and obese citizens are also strongly correlated with low levels of educational achievement and below average levels of economic success, as measured by home values. As for exactly why states with these challenges tended to vote for McCain in the 2008 presidential election is still something that can definitely be explored and discussed much further.

Despite only being able to scratch the surface of this issue, I hope to have at least demonstrated how awesome sites like StateMaster.com offer a window into examining important political, social and economic issues simply by compiling and ranking states based on vital statistical metrics.

For more on John McCain, try my McCain IQ quizhttp://www.punditpolitics.com/political_iq_tests_center.htmhttp://www.punditpolitics.com/political_iq_tests_center.htm.​

I think this is a case of correlation not equaling causation.
The "most obese" states are southern states, largely- almost overwhelmingly- red, and they no doubt vote for the conservative/ republican candidate in every election.
It is not news that blue/ liberal cities, states, and communities are more fit. They contain more educated people, more diet- and weight-conscious people, more people who exercise regularly.

 

[Keorythe]

Actually given that more urban areas or town centers where people go to to mingle, or conduct business would be a decent sampling.

Uh, no. Not even close. Town centers tend to have business oriented, quick meal (fast food), higher stress, on the go types and are not representitive of a city or even a decent population. Do not confuse scientific method for guessing.

This is the source of that tax chart
The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005
Go ahead and do your own calculations and tell us which states actually do take more or give more.

I did, and the others on the website. Did you read my post? The wage and standard of living costs are not listed there. However, if you would like to do the extensive research to refute my arguement then please feel free.

What state are you from :mrgreen:

Texas which according to their list gives more than it takes. Compared to other states we are on the middle range for standar of living costs and wages. Medium cities and suburban areas can actually live off a minimum wage unlike California where rents reach near the 1k mark for "cheap" apartment. The state is one of largest economies in the US but we have low taxes, a diverse economy, a large job market, and are business friendly (heck we'll have one of the largest wind energy generation plants in the US soon). Fiscal conservatism has left us with cash in the coffers.

Chances that Texas might actually live up to the chart...you decide.

 

[jfuh]

Uh, no. Not even close. Town centers tend to have business oriented, quick meal (fast food), higher stress, on the go types and are not representitive of a city or even a decent population. Do not confuse scientific method for guessing.

Tend also to have night clubs, sports bars, gourmet dining, movie theaters, shopping districts where a variety of people and families would go to.

I did, and the others on the website. Did you read my post? The wage and standard of living costs are not listed there. However, if you would like to do the extensive research to refute my arguement then please feel free.

Okay, fair enough, Kansas vs California. Kansas, lower wages, but also lower living costs. California, higher wages, but also higher living costs. Seems to balance out quite nicely.

Texas which according to their list gives more than it takes. Compared to other states we are on the middle range for standar of living costs and wages. Medium cities and suburban areas can actually live off a minimum wage unlike California where rents reach near the 1k mark for "cheap" apartment. The state is one of largest economies in the US but we have low taxes, a diverse economy, a large job market, and are business friendly (heck we'll have one of the largest wind energy generation plants in the US soon). Fiscal conservatism has left us with cash in the coffers.

Indeed, fiscal conservatism played a big roll as did illegal immigrants working for slave wages. But in the end, it was never an argument that ALL red states depended on the federal government more, it was that the vast majority of (84%) take more than they give.

Chances that Texas might actually live up to the chart...you decide.

Texas does live up to the chart

 

[Wessexman]

I think this is a case of correlation not equaling causation.
The "most obese" states are southern states, largely- almost overwhelmingly- red, and they no doubt vote for the conservative/ republican candidate in every election.
It is not news that blue/ liberal cities, states, and communities are more fit. They contain more educated people, more diet- and weight-conscious people, more people who exercise regularly.

And more wankers..... wait a minute...I think I may have just discovered the secret to weightloss.

 

[Keorythe]

Tend also to have night clubs, sports bars, gourmet dining, movie theaters, shopping districts where a variety of people and families would go to.

Still not good enough. Does not eliminate cultural/social habits which may lead to double or even triple counting, does not take into account population dispersal from industrial vs. agricultural (notice the shift of heavy industry to the east), and frankly leaves alot of loose ended variables. As someone who argued in the Global Warming debate you of all people ought to know better than to take any study for granted without verifying their criteria.

Take in mind that the closest thing they had to anything that wasn't incredibly subjective were the polls they sent to larger urban schools (can't afford the rural) where the counselors and nurse were asked to give numbers of obese children but no actually criteria were given. This isn't the first time that "Trust for America's Health" test procedures have come under fire. But due to the lack of anyone attempting anything similar due to the scope their word is taken for gospel.

Okay, fair enough, Kansas vs California. Kansas, lower wages, but also lower living costs. California, higher wages, but also higher living costs. Seems to balance out quite nicely.

Higher gains which are omited as well as leaves out taxes taken through...ah I give up on you. We'll just leave out context. I concede.

Indeed, fiscal conservatism played a big roll as did illegal immigrants working for slave wages. But in the end, it was never an argument that ALL red states depended on the federal government more, it was that the vast majority of (84%) take more than they give.

Owies, nice potshot at Texas. Unfortunately for your illegal alien premise to hold up it would apply to all border states...and most of the nice blue agri-western states as well.

It is not news that blue/ liberal cities, states, and communities are more fit. They contain more educated people, more diet- and weight-conscious people, more people who exercise regularly.

I agree that education is the key variable here. More educated states tend to be less overweight, and they also tend to be more Democratic.

Ah, here we go again. Trying to use commerce nerve centers like New York city as representitive sample of all blue states. Gotcha. We'll just pretend like Rhode Island doesn't exist or the massive dropout/failure rates in New York schools. :3oops:

 

[Pinu7]

This is nothing new. Republicans tend to have higher obesity rates, medium income is also lower. It is just demographics.

I say we Dems keep our Universal Health Care to ourselves and exclude the GOP. WE wont have to pay so much and THEY do not want "socialized medicine" anyway.

Everyone wins.

Edit: Correlation does not equal causation.
Being against gay marriage will not make them hungry.
And eating fatty fast food will make them find truth.

 

[1069]

Oh don't start that crap.

Every exit poll study shows that democrats and republicans have equal education and equal income.

:rofl

I'm so sure. :lol:

 

[RightOfCenter]

:rofl

I'm so sure. :lol:

I would like to see a poll that says that. I've never heard it that way.

Edit: but it looks like in 2004 sazerac is right.

CNN.com Election 2004

Kerry and Bush tied with each getting 49% of college graduates, but Bush did win amongst those with only HS diplomas

 

[jfuh]

Still not good enough. Does not eliminate cultural/social habits which may lead to double or even triple counting,

It would be balanced out because it would be done in all the counts and not only in one - thus averaged out.

does not take into account population dispersal from industrial vs. agricultural (notice the shift of heavy industry to the east), and frankly leaves alot of loose ended variables.

Why would industrial vs agriculture need to be taken into account for obesity or body sizes?

As someone who argued in the Global Warming debate you of all people ought to know better than to take any study for granted without verifying their criteria.

I'm not saying the study is valid. I'm arguing that the sampling of city centers are good places to sample from.

Take in mind that the closest thing they had to anything that wasn't incredibly subjective were the polls they sent to larger urban schools (can't afford the rural) where the counselors and nurse were asked to give numbers of obese children but no actually criteria were given. This isn't the first time that "Trust for America's Health" test procedures have come under fire. But due to the lack of anyone attempting anything similar due to the scope their word is taken for gospel.

Of which the same mistakes would've been taken into account in all cases and still averaged out.

Owies, nice potshot at Texas. Unfortunately for your illegal alien premise to hold up it would apply to all border states...and most of the nice blue agri-western states as well.

It does. But again, if you look at the graph, Texas gives more than it takes. Yet the bottom line remains, more red states take more than they give, more blue states give more than they take.

Ah, here we go again. Trying to use commerce nerve centers like New York city as representitive sample of all blue states. Gotcha. We'll just pretend like Rhode Island doesn't exist or the massive dropout/failure rates in New York schools. :3oops:

Didn't you just do that with Texas and red states?

 

[Keorythe]

It would be balanced out because it would be done in all the counts and not only in one - thus averaged out.
Why would industrial vs agriculture need to be taken into account for obesity or body sizes?

That leads to a count being compounded, not averaged out. It leads to one demographic determining an entire state. States with heavier industrial bases tend to have larger population concentrations where as more agricultural based states have their population spread throughout in smaller towns, parishes, and cities. The study did an average of numbers counted in cities vs. total state population. Since this is a non-profit organization I'll be willing to be that not every city was polled and they did some collective averaging. This puts states with heavier urban centers at a disadvantage.

I'm not saying the study is valid. I'm arguing that the sampling of city centers are good places to sample from.

Glad we agree that its not a valid study. However, I'm arguing that not only is it invalid but its flawed. There are too many variables that they have left out. I give them enormous credit for their efforts on their limited budget but there is nothing available to certify their findings.

Of which the same mistakes would've been taken into account in all cases and still averaged out.

Details? I'm not following how some mistakes are averaged out.

It does. But again, if you look at the graph, Texas gives more than it takes. Yet the bottom line remains, more red states take more than they give, more blue states give more than they take.

Hey, I'm happy that Texas made the list. That doesn't make me question the list any less. But hey, I conceded. You should be happy.

Didn't you just do that with Texas and red states?

Nope, and please don't try and take stuff out of context. I made the case for Texas and taxes. 1069 and friends are talking intelligence and habits which stem from comparing New York city vs. North Dakota or Hollywood vs. Montana. We won't even get into the dumb "redneck" or religious idiot labels that frequently get thrown around. *cough New Mexico (D)*cough *cough Colorado (D)*cough

All of this debate has made me hungry. Time from some greasy red meat on a bun or lard slathered processed cheese and pork. Yummy! Oh but I'll get a Diet Coke, that should average it out. :rofl

 

[sazerac]

Not agreeing with the premise that Fat people vote for McCain, but exit polls are not reliable either.

Remember Kerry won in 04 according to exit polls.

Exit polls can be wrong about who is winning because one party might be less inclined to stop and answer questions. But that doesn't affect questions like "what is your education" or "how much do you earn."

Asking a hundred republicans these question and asking a hundred democrats the same questions will get a good result.