Lecture 4 – Data 100, Fall 2023¶

Data 100, Fall 2023

Acknowledgments Page

A demonstration of advanced pandas syntax to accompany Lecture 4.

In [1]:
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import plotly.express as px

More on Groupby¶

Slido Exercise¶

Try to predict the results of the groupby operation shown. The answer is below the image.

Image

The top ?? will be "hi", the second ?? will be "tx", and the third ?? will be "sd".

In [2]:
ds = pd.DataFrame(dict(x=[3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9, 2, 5, 6], 
                      y=['ak', 'tx', 'fl', 'hi', 'mi', 'ak', 'ca', 'sd', 'nc']), 
                      index=list('ABCABCACB') )
ds
Out[2]:
x y
A 3 ak
B 1 tx
C 4 fl
A 1 hi
B 5 mi
C 9 ak
A 2 ca
C 5 sd
B 6 nc
In [3]:
ds.groupby(ds.index).agg(max)
Out[3]:
x y
A 3 hi
B 6 tx
C 9 sd

Loading babynames Dataset¶

In [4]:
import urllib.request
import os.path
import zipfile

data_url = "https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/state/namesbystate.zip"
local_filename = "data/babynamesbystate.zip"
if not os.path.exists(local_filename): # If the data exists don't download again
    with urllib.request.urlopen(data_url) as resp, open(local_filename, 'wb') as f:
        f.write(resp.read())

zf = zipfile.ZipFile(local_filename, 'r')

ca_name = 'STATE.CA.TXT'
field_names = ['State', 'Sex', 'Year', 'Name', 'Count']
with zf.open(ca_name) as fh:
    babynames = pd.read_csv(fh, header=None, names=field_names)

babynames.tail(10)
Out[4]:
State Sex Year Name Count
407418 CA M 2022 Zach 5
407419 CA M 2022 Zadkiel 5
407420 CA M 2022 Zae 5
407421 CA M 2022 Zai 5
407422 CA M 2022 Zay 5
407423 CA M 2022 Zayvier 5
407424 CA M 2022 Zia 5
407425 CA M 2022 Zora 5
407426 CA M 2022 Zuriel 5
407427 CA M 2022 Zylo 5

Case Study: Name "Popularity"¶

In this exercise, let's find the name with sex "F" that has dropped most in popularity since its peak usage in California. We'll start by filtering babynames to only include names corresponding to sex "F".

In [5]:
f_babynames = babynames[babynames["Sex"] == "F"]
f_babynames
Out[5]:
State Sex Year Name Count
0 CA F 1910 Mary 295
1 CA F 1910 Helen 239
2 CA F 1910 Dorothy 220
3 CA F 1910 Margaret 163
4 CA F 1910 Frances 134
... ... ... ... ... ...
239532 CA F 2022 Zemira 5
239533 CA F 2022 Ziggy 5
239534 CA F 2022 Zimal 5
239535 CA F 2022 Zosia 5
239536 CA F 2022 Zulay 5

239537 rows × 5 columns

In [6]:
# We sort the data by year
f_babynames = f_babynames.sort_values("Year")
f_babynames
Out[6]:
State Sex Year Name Count
0 CA F 1910 Mary 295
148 CA F 1910 Merle 9
149 CA F 1910 Rosalie 9
150 CA F 1910 Rosie 9
151 CA F 1910 Teresa 9
... ... ... ... ... ...
237072 CA F 2022 Johana 22
237073 CA F 2022 Kit 22
237074 CA F 2022 Korra 22
237076 CA F 2022 Lavender 22
239536 CA F 2022 Zulay 5

239537 rows × 5 columns

To build our intuition on how to answer our research question, let's visualize the prevalence of the name "Jennifer" over time.

In [7]:
# We'll talk about how to generate plots in a later lecture
fig = px.line(f_babynames[f_babynames["Name"] == "Jennifer"],
              x = "Year", y = "Count")
fig.update_layout(font_size = 18, 
                  autosize=False, 
                  width=1000, 
                  height=400)

We'll need a mathematical definition for the change in popularity of a name in California.

Define the metric "Ratio to Peak" (RTP). We'll calculate this as the count of the name in 2022 (the most recent year for which we have data) divided by the largest count of this name in any year.

A demo calculation for Jennifer:

In [8]:
# In the year with the highest Jennifer count, 6065 Jennifers were born
max_jenn = np.max(f_babynames[f_babynames["Name"] == "Jennifer"]["Count"])
max_jenn
Out[8]:
6065
In [9]:
# Remember that we sorted f_babynames by year. 
# This means that grabbing the final entry gives us the most recent count of Jennifers: 114
# In 2022, the most recent year for which we have data, 114 Jennifers were born
curr_jenn = f_babynames[f_babynames["Name"] == "Jennifer"]["Count"].iloc[-1]
curr_jenn
Out[9]:
114
In [10]:
# Compute the RTP
curr_jenn / max_jenn
Out[10]:
0.018796372629843364

We can also write a function that produces the ratio_to_peakfor a given Series. This will allow us to use .groupby to speed up our computation for all names in the dataset.

In [11]:
def ratio_to_peak(series):
    """
    Compute the RTP for a Series containing the counts per year for a single name
    """
    return series.iloc[-1] / np.max(series)
In [12]:
# Construct a Series containing our Jennifer count data
jenn_counts_ser = f_babynames[f_babynames["Name"] == "Jennifer"]["Count"]

# Then, find the RTP
ratio_to_peak(jenn_counts_ser)
Out[12]:
0.018796372629843364

Now, let's use .groupby to compute the RTPs for all names in the dataset.

You may see a warning message when running the cell below. As discussed in the lecture, pandas can't apply an aggregation function to non-numeric data (it doens't make sense to divide "CA" by a number). We can select numerical columns of interest directly.

In [13]:
rtp_table = f_babynames.groupby("Name")[["Year", "Count"]].agg(ratio_to_peak)
rtp_table
Out[13]:
Year Count
Name
Aadhini 1.0 1.000000
Aadhira 1.0 0.500000
Aadhya 1.0 0.660000
Aadya 1.0 0.586207
Aahana 1.0 0.269231
... ... ...
Zyanya 1.0 0.466667
Zyla 1.0 1.000000
Zylah 1.0 1.000000
Zyra 1.0 1.000000
Zyrah 1.0 0.833333

13782 rows × 2 columns

In [14]:
# Results in a TypeError
# rtp_table = f_babynames.groupby("Name").agg(ratio_to_peak)
# rtp_table

This is the pandas equivalent of .group from Data 8. If we wanted to achieve this same result using the datascience library, we would write:

f_babynames.group("Name", ratio_to_peak)

Slido Exercise¶

Is there a row where Year is not equal to 1?

In [15]:
# Unique values in the Year column
rtp_table["Year"].unique()
Out[15]:
array([1.])
In [16]:
# Dropping the Year column
rtp_table.drop("Year", axis="columns", inplace=True)
rtp_table
Out[16]:
Count
Name
Aadhini 1.000000
Aadhira 0.500000
Aadhya 0.660000
Aadya 0.586207
Aahana 0.269231
... ...
Zyanya 0.466667
Zyla 1.000000
Zylah 1.000000
Zyra 1.000000
Zyrah 0.833333

13782 rows × 1 columns

In [17]:
# Rename "Count" to "Count RTP" for clarity
rtp_table = rtp_table.rename(columns = {"Count": "Count RTP"})
rtp_table
Out[17]:
Count RTP
Name
Aadhini 1.000000
Aadhira 0.500000
Aadhya 0.660000
Aadya 0.586207
Aahana 0.269231
... ...
Zyanya 0.466667
Zyla 1.000000
Zylah 1.000000
Zyra 1.000000
Zyrah 0.833333

13782 rows × 1 columns

In [18]:
# What name has fallen the most in popularity?
rtp_table.sort_values("Count RTP")
Out[18]:
Count RTP
Name
Debra 0.001260
Debbie 0.002815
Carol 0.003180
Tammy 0.003249
Susan 0.003305
... ...
Fidelia 1.000000
Naveyah 1.000000
Finlee 1.000000
Roseline 1.000000
Aadhini 1.000000

13782 rows × 1 columns

We can visualize the decrease in the popularity of the name "Debra:"

In [19]:
def plot_name(*names):
    fig = px.line(f_babynames[f_babynames["Name"].isin(names)], 
                  x = "Year", y = "Count", color="Name",
                  title=f"Popularity for: {names}")
    fig.update_layout(font_size = 18, 
                  autosize=False, 
                  width=1000, 
                  height=400)
    return fig

plot_name("Debra")
In [20]:
# Find the 10 names that have decreased the most in popularity
top10 = rtp_table.sort_values("Count RTP").head(10).index
top10
Out[20]:
Index(['Debra', 'Debbie', 'Carol', 'Tammy', 'Susan', 'Cheryl', 'Shannon',
       'Tina', 'Michele', 'Terri'],
      dtype='object', name='Name')
In [21]:
plot_name(*top10)

For fun, try plotting your name or your friends' names.

Slido Exercise¶

Given the example below on babynames dataset, write code to compute the total number of babies with each name in California.

In [22]:
puzzle1 = babynames.groupby("Name")[["Count"]].sum()
# OR
# puzzle1 = babynames.groupby("Name")[["Count"]].agg(sum)

puzzle1
Out[22]:
Count
Name
Aadan 18
Aadarsh 6
Aaden 647
Aadhav 27
Aadhini 6
... ...
Zymir 5
Zyon 133
Zyra 103
Zyrah 21
Zyrus 5

20437 rows × 1 columns

Slido Exercise¶

Write code to compute the total number of babies born each year in California.

In [23]:
# puzzle2 = babynames.groupby("Year")[["Count"]].sum()
# OR
puzzle2 = babynames.groupby("Year").sum(numeric_only=True)

puzzle2
Out[23]:
Count
Year
1910 9163
1911 9983
1912 17946
1913 22094
1914 26926
... ...
2018 395436
2019 386996
2020 362882
2021 362582
2022 360023

113 rows × 1 columns

In [24]:
# Plotting baby counts per year
fig = px.line(puzzle2, y = "Count")
fig.update_layout(font_size = 18, 
                  autosize=False, 
                  width=700, 
                  height=400)

groupby.size and groupby.count()¶

In [25]:
df = pd.DataFrame({'letter':['A', 'A', 'B', 'C', 'C', 'C'], 
                   'num':[1, 2, 3, 4, np.NaN, 4], 
                   'state':[np.NaN, 'tx', 'fl', 'hi', np.NaN, 'ak']})
df
Out[25]:
letter num state
0 A 1.0 NaN
1 A 2.0 tx
2 B 3.0 fl
3 C 4.0 hi
4 C NaN NaN
5 C 4.0 ak

groupby.size() returns a Series, indexed by the letters that we grouped by, with values denoting the number of rows in each group/sub-DataFrame. It does not care about missing (NaN) values.

In [26]:
df.groupby("letter").size()
Out[26]:
letter
A    2
B    1
C    3
dtype: int64

groupby.count() returns a DataFrame, indexed by the letters that we grouped by. Each column represents the number of non-missing values for that letter.

In [27]:
df.groupby("letter").count()
Out[27]:
num state
letter
A 2 1
B 1 1
C 2 2

You might recall value_counts() function we talked about last week. What's the difference?

In [28]:
df["letter"].value_counts()
Out[28]:
letter
C    3
A    2
B    1
Name: count, dtype: int64

Turns out value_counts() does something similar to groupby.size(), except that it also sorts the resulting Series in descending order.

Filtering by Group¶

In [29]:
# Let's read the elections dataset
elections = pd.read_csv("data/elections.csv")
elections.sample(5)
Out[29]:
Year Candidate Party Popular vote Result %
129 1980 Jimmy Carter Democratic 35480115 loss 41.132848
100 1948 Harry Truman Democratic 24179347 win 49.601536
102 1948 Norman Thomas Socialist 139569 loss 0.286312
99 1948 Claude A. Watson Prohibition 103708 loss 0.212747
42 1888 Alson Streeter Union Labor 146602 loss 1.288861

Let's keep only the elections years where the maximum vote share % is less than 45%.

In [30]:
elections.groupby("Year").filter(lambda sf: sf["%"].max() < 45).head(10)
Out[30]:
Year Candidate Party Popular vote Result %
23 1860 Abraham Lincoln Republican 1855993 win 39.699408
24 1860 John Bell Constitutional Union 590901 loss 12.639283
25 1860 John C. Breckinridge Southern Democratic 848019 loss 18.138998
26 1860 Stephen A. Douglas Northern Democratic 1380202 loss 29.522311
66 1912 Eugene V. Debs Socialist 901551 loss 6.004354
67 1912 Eugene W. Chafin Prohibition 208156 loss 1.386325
68 1912 Theodore Roosevelt Progressive 4122721 loss 27.457433
69 1912 William Taft Republican 3486242 loss 23.218466
70 1912 Woodrow Wilson Democratic 6296284 win 41.933422
115 1968 George Wallace American Independent 9901118 loss 13.571218

groupby Puzzle¶

Assume that we want to know the best election by each party.

Attempt #1¶

We have to be careful when using aggregation functions. For example, the code below might be misinterpreted to say that Woodrow Wilson successfully ran for election in 2020. Why is this happening?

In [31]:
elections.groupby("Party").agg(max).head(10)
Out[31]:
Year Candidate Popular vote Result %
Party
American 1976 Thomas J. Anderson 873053 loss 21.554001
American Independent 1976 Lester Maddox 9901118 loss 13.571218
Anti-Masonic 1832 William Wirt 100715 loss 7.821583
Anti-Monopoly 1884 Benjamin Butler 134294 loss 1.335838
Citizens 1980 Barry Commoner 233052 loss 0.270182
Communist 1932 William Z. Foster 103307 loss 0.261069
Constitution 2016 Michael Peroutka 203091 loss 0.152398
Constitutional Union 1860 John Bell 590901 loss 12.639283
Democratic 2020 Woodrow Wilson 81268924 win 61.344703
Democratic-Republican 1824 John Quincy Adams 151271 win 57.210122

Attempt #2¶

Next, we'll write code that properly returns the best result by each party. That is, each row should show the Year, Candidate, Popular Vote, Result, and % for the election in which that party saw its best results (rather than mixing them as in the example above). Here's what the first rows of the correct output should look like:

parties.png

In [32]:
elections_sorted_by_percent = elections.sort_values("%", ascending=False)
elections_sorted_by_percent.head(8)
Out[32]:
Year Candidate Party Popular vote Result %
114 1964 Lyndon Johnson Democratic 43127041 win 61.344703
91 1936 Franklin Roosevelt Democratic 27752648 win 60.978107
120 1972 Richard Nixon Republican 47168710 win 60.907806
79 1920 Warren Harding Republican 16144093 win 60.574501
133 1984 Ronald Reagan Republican 54455472 win 59.023326
84 1928 Herbert Hoover Republican 21427123 win 58.368524
86 1932 Franklin Roosevelt Democratic 22821277 win 57.672125
109 1956 Dwight Eisenhower Republican 35579180 win 57.650654
In [33]:
elections_sorted_by_percent.groupby("Party").first()
Out[33]:
Year Candidate Popular vote Result %
Party
American 1856 Millard Fillmore 873053 loss 21.554001
American Independent 1968 George Wallace 9901118 loss 13.571218
Anti-Masonic 1832 William Wirt 100715 loss 7.821583
Anti-Monopoly 1884 Benjamin Butler 134294 loss 1.335838
Citizens 1980 Barry Commoner 233052 loss 0.270182
Communist 1932 William Z. Foster 103307 loss 0.261069
Constitution 2008 Chuck Baldwin 199750 loss 0.152398
Constitutional Union 1860 John Bell 590901 loss 12.639283
Democratic 1964 Lyndon Johnson 43127041 win 61.344703
Democratic-Republican 1824 Andrew Jackson 151271 loss 57.210122
Dixiecrat 1948 Strom Thurmond 1175930 loss 2.412304
Farmer–Labor 1920 Parley P. Christensen 265398 loss 0.995804
Free Soil 1848 Martin Van Buren 291501 loss 10.138474
Green 2000 Ralph Nader 2882955 loss 2.741176
Greenback 1880 James B. Weaver 308649 loss 3.352344
Independent 1992 Ross Perot 19743821 loss 18.956298
Liberal Republican 1872 Horace Greeley 2834761 loss 44.071406
Libertarian 2016 Gary Johnson 4489235 loss 3.307714
National Democratic 1896 John M. Palmer 134645 loss 0.969566
National Republican 1828 John Quincy Adams 500897 loss 43.796073
National Union 1864 Abraham Lincoln 2211317 win 54.951512
Natural Law 1996 John Hagelin 113670 loss 0.118219
New Alliance 1988 Lenora Fulani 217221 loss 0.237804
Northern Democratic 1860 Stephen A. Douglas 1380202 loss 29.522311
Populist 1892 James B. Weaver 1041028 loss 8.645038
Progressive 1912 Theodore Roosevelt 4122721 loss 27.457433
Prohibition 1892 John Bidwell 270879 loss 2.249468
Reform 1996 Ross Perot 8085294 loss 8.408844
Republican 1972 Richard Nixon 47168710 win 60.907806
Socialist 1912 Eugene V. Debs 901551 loss 6.004354
Southern Democratic 1860 John C. Breckinridge 848019 loss 18.138998
States' Rights 1956 T. Coleman Andrews 107929 loss 0.174883
Taxpayers 1996 Howard Phillips 184656 loss 0.192045
Union 1936 William Lemke 892378 loss 1.960733
Union Labor 1888 Alson Streeter 146602 loss 1.288861
Whig 1840 William Henry Harrison 1275583 win 53.051213

Alternative Solutions¶

You'll soon discover that with Pandas rich tool set, there's typically more than one way to get to the same answer. Each approach has different tradeoffs in terms of readability, performance, memory consumption, complexity, and more. It will take some experience for you to develop a sense of which approach is better for each problem, but you should, in general, try to think if you can at least envision a different solution to a given problem, especially if you find your current solution to be particularly convoluted or hard to read.

Here are a couple of other ways of obtaining the same result (in each case, we only show the top part with head()). The first approach uses groupby but finds the location of the maximum value via the idxmax() method (look up its documentation!). We then index and sort by Party to match the requested formatting:

In [34]:
elections.groupby("Party")["%"].idxmax()
Out[34]:
Party
American                  22
American Independent     115
Anti-Masonic               6
Anti-Monopoly             38
Citizens                 127
Communist                 89
Constitution             164
Constitutional Union      24
Democratic               114
Democratic-Republican      0
Dixiecrat                103
Farmer–Labor              78
Free Soil                 15
Green                    155
Greenback                 35
Independent              143
Liberal Republican        31
Libertarian              175
National Democratic       50
National Republican        3
National Union            27
Natural Law              148
New Alliance             136
Northern Democratic       26
Populist                  48
Progressive               68
Prohibition               49
Reform                   150
Republican               120
Socialist                 66
Southern Democratic       25
States' Rights           110
Taxpayers                147
Union                     93
Union Labor               42
Whig                      11
Name: %, dtype: int64
In [35]:
# This is the computational part
best_per_party = elections.loc[elections.groupby("Party")["%"].idxmax()]

# This indexes by Party to match the formatting above
best_per_party.set_index('Party').sort_index().head()
Out[35]:
Year Candidate Popular vote Result %
Party
American 1856 Millard Fillmore 873053 loss 21.554001
American Independent 1968 George Wallace 9901118 loss 13.571218
Anti-Masonic 1832 William Wirt 100715 loss 7.821583
Anti-Monopoly 1884 Benjamin Butler 134294 loss 1.335838
Citizens 1980 Barry Commoner 233052 loss 0.270182

And this one doesn't even use groupby! This approach instead uses the drop_duplicates method to keep only the last occurrence of of each party after having sorted by "%", which is the best performance. Again, the 2nd line is purely formatting:

In [36]:
best_per_party2 = elections.sort_values("%").drop_duplicates(["Party"], keep="last")
best_per_party2.set_index("Party").sort_index().head()  # Formatting
Out[36]:
Year Candidate Popular vote Result %
Party
American 1856 Millard Fillmore 873053 loss 21.554001
American Independent 1968 George Wallace 9901118 loss 13.571218
Anti-Masonic 1832 William Wirt 100715 loss 7.821583
Anti-Monopoly 1884 Benjamin Butler 134294 loss 1.335838
Citizens 1980 Barry Commoner 233052 loss 0.270182

Challenge: See if you can find yet another approach that still gives the same answer.

DataFrameGroupBy Objects¶

The result of groupby is not a DataFrame or a list of DataFrames. It is instead a special type called a DataFrameGroupBy.

In [37]:
grouped_by_party = elections.groupby("Party")
type(grouped_by_party)
Out[37]:
pandas.core.groupby.generic.DataFrameGroupBy

GroupBy objects are structured like dictionaries. In fact, we can actually see the dictionaries with the following code:

In [38]:
grouped_by_party.groups
Out[38]:
{'American': [22, 126], 'American Independent': [115, 119, 124], 'Anti-Masonic': [6], 'Anti-Monopoly': [38], 'Citizens': [127], 'Communist': [89], 'Constitution': [160, 164, 172], 'Constitutional Union': [24], 'Democratic': [2, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 28, 29, 34, 37, 39, 45, 47, 52, 55, 57, 64, 70, 74, 77, 81, 83, 86, 91, 94, 97, 100, 105, 108, 111, 114, 116, 118, 123, 129, 134, 137, 140, 144, 151, 158, 162, 168, 176, 178], 'Democratic-Republican': [0, 1], 'Dixiecrat': [103], 'Farmer–Labor': [78], 'Free Soil': [15, 18], 'Green': [149, 155, 156, 165, 170, 177, 181], 'Greenback': [35], 'Independent': [121, 130, 143, 161, 167, 174], 'Liberal Republican': [31], 'Libertarian': [125, 128, 132, 138, 139, 146, 153, 159, 163, 169, 175, 180], 'National Democratic': [50], 'National Republican': [3, 5], 'National Union': [27], 'Natural Law': [148], 'New Alliance': [136], 'Northern Democratic': [26], 'Populist': [48, 61, 141], 'Progressive': [68, 82, 101, 107], 'Prohibition': [41, 44, 49, 51, 54, 59, 63, 67, 73, 75, 99], 'Reform': [150, 154], 'Republican': [21, 23, 30, 32, 33, 36, 40, 43, 46, 53, 56, 60, 65, 69, 72, 79, 80, 84, 87, 90, 96, 98, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 117, 120, 122, 131, 133, 135, 142, 145, 152, 157, 166, 171, 173, 179], 'Socialist': [58, 62, 66, 71, 76, 85, 88, 92, 95, 102], 'Southern Democratic': [25], 'States' Rights': [110], 'Taxpayers': [147], 'Union': [93], 'Union Labor': [42], 'Whig': [7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19]}

The keys of the dictionary are the groups (in this case, Party), and the values are the indices of rows belonging to that group. We can access a particular sub-DataFrame using get_group:

In [39]:
grouped_by_party.get_group("Socialist")
Out[39]:
Year Candidate Party Popular vote Result %
58 1904 Eugene V. Debs Socialist 402810 loss 2.985897
62 1908 Eugene V. Debs Socialist 420852 loss 2.850866
66 1912 Eugene V. Debs Socialist 901551 loss 6.004354
71 1916 Allan L. Benson Socialist 590524 loss 3.194193
76 1920 Eugene V. Debs Socialist 913693 loss 3.428282
85 1928 Norman Thomas Socialist 267478 loss 0.728623
88 1932 Norman Thomas Socialist 884885 loss 2.236211
92 1936 Norman Thomas Socialist 187910 loss 0.412876
95 1940 Norman Thomas Socialist 116599 loss 0.234237
102 1948 Norman Thomas Socialist 139569 loss 0.286312

Pivot Tables¶

Groupby with multiple columns¶

We want to build a table showing the total number of babies born of each sex in each year. One way is to groupby using both columns of interest:

In [40]:
babynames.groupby(["Year", "Sex"])[["Count"]].sum().head(6)
Out[40]:
Count
Year Sex
1910 F 5950
M 3213
1911 F 6602
M 3381
1912 F 9804
M 8142

pivot_table¶

In [41]:
babynames.pivot_table(
    index = "Year", 
    columns = "Sex", 
    values = "Count", 
    aggfunc = np.sum).head(6)
Out[41]:
Sex F M
Year
1910 5950 3213
1911 6602 3381
1912 9804 8142
1913 11860 10234
1914 13815 13111
1915 18643 17192

pivot_picture.png

pivot_table with Multiple values¶

In [42]:
babynames.pivot_table(
    index = "Year", 
    columns = "Sex", 
    values = ["Count", "Name"], 
    aggfunc = np.max).head(6)
Out[42]:
Count Name
Sex F M F M
Year
1910 295 237 Yvonne William
1911 390 214 Zelma Willis
1912 534 501 Yvonne Woodrow
1913 584 614 Zelma Yoshio
1914 773 769 Zelma Yoshio
1915 998 1033 Zita Yukio

Join Tables¶

What if we want to know the popularity of presidential candidates' first names in California in 2022? What can we do?

In [43]:
elections.head(10)
Out[43]:
Year Candidate Party Popular vote Result %
0 1824 Andrew Jackson Democratic-Republican 151271 loss 57.210122
1 1824 John Quincy Adams Democratic-Republican 113142 win 42.789878
2 1828 Andrew Jackson Democratic 642806 win 56.203927
3 1828 John Quincy Adams National Republican 500897 loss 43.796073
4 1832 Andrew Jackson Democratic 702735 win 54.574789
5 1832 Henry Clay National Republican 484205 loss 37.603628
6 1832 William Wirt Anti-Masonic 100715 loss 7.821583
7 1836 Hugh Lawson White Whig 146109 loss 10.005985
8 1836 Martin Van Buren Democratic 763291 win 52.272472
9 1836 William Henry Harrison Whig 550816 loss 37.721543
In [44]:
babynames_2022 = babynames[babynames["Year"] == 2022]
babynames_2022.head(10)
Out[44]:
State Sex Year Name Count
235835 CA F 2022 Olivia 2178
235836 CA F 2022 Emma 2080
235837 CA F 2022 Camila 2046
235838 CA F 2022 Mia 1882
235839 CA F 2022 Sophia 1762
235840 CA F 2022 Isabella 1733
235841 CA F 2022 Luna 1516
235842 CA F 2022 Sofia 1307
235843 CA F 2022 Amelia 1289
235844 CA F 2022 Gianna 1107
In [45]:
elections["First Name"] = elections["Candidate"].str.split(" ").str[0]
elections
Out[45]:
Year Candidate Party Popular vote Result % First Name
0 1824 Andrew Jackson Democratic-Republican 151271 loss 57.210122 Andrew
1 1824 John Quincy Adams Democratic-Republican 113142 win 42.789878 John
2 1828 Andrew Jackson Democratic 642806 win 56.203927 Andrew
3 1828 John Quincy Adams National Republican 500897 loss 43.796073 John
4 1832 Andrew Jackson Democratic 702735 win 54.574789 Andrew
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
177 2016 Jill Stein Green 1457226 loss 1.073699 Jill
178 2020 Joseph Biden Democratic 81268924 win 51.311515 Joseph
179 2020 Donald Trump Republican 74216154 loss 46.858542 Donald
180 2020 Jo Jorgensen Libertarian 1865724 loss 1.177979 Jo
181 2020 Howard Hawkins Green 405035 loss 0.255731 Howard

182 rows × 7 columns

Unlike in Data 8, the join function is called merge in pandas. join in pandas does something slightly different—we won't talk about it in this class.

In [46]:
merged = pd.merge(left = elections, right = babynames_2022, 
                  left_on = "First Name", right_on = "Name")
merged
Out[46]:
Year_x Candidate Party Popular vote Result % First Name State Sex Year_y Name Count
0 1824 Andrew Jackson Democratic-Republican 151271 loss 57.210122 Andrew CA M 2022 Andrew 741
1 1828 Andrew Jackson Democratic 642806 win 56.203927 Andrew CA M 2022 Andrew 741
2 1832 Andrew Jackson Democratic 702735 win 54.574789 Andrew CA M 2022 Andrew 741
3 1824 John Quincy Adams Democratic-Republican 113142 win 42.789878 John CA M 2022 John 490
4 1828 John Quincy Adams National Republican 500897 loss 43.796073 John CA M 2022 John 490
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
147 2020 Donald Trump Republican 74216154 loss 46.858542 Donald CA M 2022 Donald 33
148 2016 Evan McMullin Independent 732273 loss 0.539546 Evan CA F 2022 Evan 11
149 2016 Evan McMullin Independent 732273 loss 0.539546 Evan CA M 2022 Evan 488
150 2016 Hillary Clinton Democratic 65853514 loss 48.521539 Hillary CA F 2022 Hillary 10
151 2020 Joseph Biden Democratic 81268924 win 51.311515 Joseph CA M 2022 Joseph 785

152 rows × 12 columns

In [47]:
merged.sort_values("Count", ascending=False)
Out[47]:
Year_x Candidate Party Popular vote Result % First Name State Sex Year_y Name Count
75 1892 Benjamin Harrison Republican 5176108 loss 42.984101 Benjamin CA M 2022 Benjamin 1524
73 1884 Benjamin Butler Anti-Monopoly 134294 loss 1.335838 Benjamin CA M 2022 Benjamin 1524
74 1888 Benjamin Harrison Republican 5443633 win 47.858041 Benjamin CA M 2022 Benjamin 1524
46 1880 James Garfield Republican 4453337 win 48.369234 James CA M 2022 James 1086
44 1880 James B. Weaver Greenback 308649 loss 3.352344 James CA M 2022 James 1086
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
115 1964 Lyndon Johnson Democratic 43127041 win 61.344703 Lyndon CA M 2022 Lyndon 6
92 1912 Woodrow Wilson Democratic 6296284 win 41.933422 Woodrow CA M 2022 Woodrow 6
93 1916 Woodrow Wilson Democratic 9126868 win 49.367987 Woodrow CA M 2022 Woodrow 6
76 1888 Clinton B. Fisk Prohibition 249819 loss 2.196299 Clinton CA M 2022 Clinton 6
145 2016 Darrell Castle Constitution 203091 loss 0.149640 Darrell CA M 2022 Darrell 5

152 rows × 12 columns