Wild Hogs vs Support for Bush

There was an interesting article on the wild hog population in the U.S in New Yorker. The author hypothesized that the number of wild hogs in a county or a state is a strong indicator of whether the said county or state voted for Bush in 2004. In other words, states free of wild hogs, mostly blue states, voted for Kerry while Red states, where wild hogs concentrate, voted for Bush.

One exception to this theory is Australia, where wild hogs outnumbers human population but Bush is not very popular. There, the rule does not apply overseas, the author concedes. What about the predictive ability of the theory? I am somewhat sure the population of wild hogs is expanding their base in the U.S.. Does it mean Democrats have to swallow another loss in the coming year? How confusing! at least for now. Polls are showing Hillary Clinton is leading in the polls by a wide margin. But who knows? There might be another recount.

Tidbits: wild hogs are delicious, according to the article; dog guys refer to hunters who use dogs to catch boars.