And here again -- I keep putting this up, you keep going

....
Once again for the slow readers:
There is a discernible pattern -- but
82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.
I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:
(For the purpose here, "Northerners" means "the rest of the country outside the South")
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
- >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)
- Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
- >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)
The Senate version:
- Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
- Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
- Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
- Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
- ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
- ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)
Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.
But
96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.
The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's
regional, not political. And
regional means
cultural.
You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)
There is your pattern.