I think it breaks down when you pay more attention. Using this map: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countymapp...

- The Mississippi river is quite blue but has very low life expectancy

- Similarly in Montana and the Dakotas, the blue counties are the ones doing poorly

- From Alabama to SC, the black belt has low life expectancy and votes blue.

Actually, looking at the coasts and major metro areas (masses of population) it holds quite well. I'd be shocked if there was no variance, particularly in low population areas like the Mississippi floodplain.

The last map on this page smashes the cartoon:

http://gotz.web.unc.edu/2016/12/20/election-maps-representin...

(it's the 2016 popular vote)

Ah someone just had to make it political again, sad to see this on HN, I'm sure you're the same kind of person who wonders why the country is so divided.

From a mathematical perspective: If you can't separate an observation from potential sources of bias, what good is your analysis? The fact that the observation holds despite bias is a strong indicator of its validity.

From a business perspective: an informed citizenry makes the best customers.

From a leadership perspective: citizens need to engage.