Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

April 2025
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Archives

Statistician Needed [Dan Collins]

Doug Ross:

A tipster alerted me to an interesting assertion. A cursory review by that person showed that many of the Chrysler dealers on the closing list were heavy Republican donors.

To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn’t an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.

However, I also found additional research online at Scribd (author unknown), which also appears to point to a highly partisan decision-making process.

If we could get a statistician to do a simple analysis of the available information, to determine the odds against this apparent bias being a function of coincidence, that would be great.

Related: B Moe at Pub.

93 Replies to “Statistician Needed [Dan Collins]”

  1. Mr. Pink says:

    This was to be expected.

  2. JD says:

    I am going to be shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out that they allowed politics to dictate these decisions.

  3. d.k.allen says:

    I’m not a statistician, but it seems to me that one would need to evaluate the list of dealerships which did *not* get cut, to see whether they were *not* republican party donors, and (as a separate exercise) whether they *were* democrat party donors.

    If, for some reason, most of the dealerships — cut or otherwise — donate to republican campaigns, then the report would, of course, be completely expected simply in terms of probabilities.

  4. bh says:

    What Allen said. If someone wanted to nail this down, they’d need to get some more information first. Certainly looks like it could a fruitful endeavor though.

  5. geoffb says:

    A simple analysis of the actions of, the political left, the Chicago political machine, and this and previous Democratic administrations, toward both political enemies and friends leads to the conclusion that yes they did target Republicans. The dangerous part is not the action itself but the fact that they find no reason to cloak it anymore.

  6. McGehee says:

    Ditto Allen and bh — this could prove no more remarkable than finding that the overwhelming majority of “journalists” losing their jobs as newspapers close, are Democrats.

  7. Mr. Pink says:

    They do not have to hide it when they know full well that if the action is discovered the media still will not report it. Obama could roll a joint out of the Constitution and smoke it on the steps of the SC and outside of right wing blogs and a cable news network noone would know.

  8. poon says:

    From Open Secrets:

    21. National Auto Dealers Assn $3,297,000 Democrats 29% Republicans 58% Leans Republican

    The National Auto Dealers Association was the only organization in the top 30 to give significantly more to Republicans than Democrats last year.

  9. Dan Collins says:

    Well, agreed, but if on analysis of the information it turns out that there’s a clear pattern, that makes possible a class action suit, which wouldn’t bother me in the least, because it would be at minimum demonstrative.

  10. Ric Locke says:

    These events have heralded a new era of partnership between the White House and private companies, one that calls to mind the wonderful partnership Germany formed with France and the Low Countries at the start of World War II.

    David Brooks in the NYT today (h/t the Judds

    Regards,
    Ric

  11. psycho... says:

    Again–

    Requesting pornographic detail of the Great American Ass-Boning is unsane.

    Presume a highly improbable correlation is found, and you can show the numbers around. First, almost no one gives a fuck. Of those who have fucks to give, those who love the Leader will be pleased (with themselves) that he’s stickin’ it to y’all (or secretly so pleased, while talking niggling statistical shit to waste your time), and those who don’t love the Leader will only continue not loving him, none more not. They can add it to their already long-enough Why I Don’t Love The Leader lists, and show the lists to…each other? The other guys can’t even see them.

    Will there be a frogmarch? No.

    Will the stolen-from dudes get their shit back? No.

    “Great.”

  12. Dan Collins says:

    So, poon, one would expect somewhere in the vicinity of 2:1 primarily Republican donor closings, yes?

  13. Dan Collins says:

    and psycho, I understand what you’re saying, once again, but bend over and take it doesn’t really float my boat, man.

  14. poon says:

    Sounds like a good guess, Dan.

  15. cranky-d says:

    Without the full data set, no analysis is possible, as many have already said. Even then, if there were a bias, it would have to be fairly large to be significant. You would also have to take into account geographical location, population density, and other stuff like that.

  16. It’s even harder than d.k.allen suggests. Not only do you need to compare the cut dealerships to the uncut dealerships, you need to do these comparisons in ways that are controlled for sales volume, geography, &c.

    That is, there are all kinds of confounding variables. For instance, if rural dealerships are unprofitable for Chrysler, then shedding unprofitable dealerships might mean shedding rural dealerships disproportionately. This would presumably mean shedding Republican-leaning dealers disproportionately, even without any political motivation at all.

    ‘Course, I’m not saying there’s nothing to be found there. But it would take a good deal of work to dig into, and I have the feeling that some people are likely to go off half-cocked here and embarrass themselves.

  17. Ric Locke says:

    Requesting pornographic detail of the Great American Ass-Boning is unsane.

    No. It merely gives a new appreciation for Nero. A fire that big needs musical accompaniment.

    Regards,
    Ric

  18. Mr. Pink says:

    13

    Yeah I prefer to whine, bitch, and moan even if it accomplishes nothing.

  19. That cranky-d is a very clever guy, you know.

  20. cranky-d says:

    You know who else is really clever? That broken quanta guy.

  21. jim warren says:

    I am second to nobody in the area of Obama distrust, but…

    This is the same as cutting half of the New York Times newsroom and then saying that it seems like they were axed because they were Democrat campaign contributors.

    They are all democrats in the newsroom because they have to be. The corrolary of this is that they are all Republicans in the vanguard of the free-market that is a dealership because they have to be.

  22. Bob Reed says:

    Another demonstration of the inimitable “Chicago way”…

    The full dealer list, as well as their history and sales figures, would be required to do a serious statistical analysis. Any bets on that being readily available..?

    And unfortunately, as psycho has pointed out; would it be useful as more than another straw on the Camels back..?

    I mean, you know how easily the MSM dismisses stibborn facts and inconvenient truths; and engages in the “look, bunnies!!” approach when all else fails…

    And O! has just provided his minions with the biggest bunny distraction, his first SCOTUS nominee…

  23. Dan Collins says:

    I agree with all of your concerns and skepticism, but let’s obtain the information, determine the fairest methodology, and let the results speak for themselves.

  24. bh says:

    I don’t think you’d have to start with the more complete picture to see if it’s worth looking into farther. Take all the dealers, find the coefficient between closed down and Republican. If you get .99, then yeah, keep looking.

  25. happyfeet says:

    Well also another a lot key part is the part where they’re already shopping for new dealers to take over from the ones they fucked over … I bet they mostly go to dirty socialist Barack Obama-voting scum. Even if all the dealers what are fired are Republicans and they get their dealerships back I still won’t buy one of their gay-assed dirty socialist pansy cars what UAW faggots pawed all over.

  26. Phil says:

    I think this is something which requires a Congressional hearing. This should go beyond bitching on a blog. How do we make sure our “representatives” are…you know, representing us?

  27. JD says:

    I wonder what the statistical probability of there being no Baracky supporters on the list of dealers that were cut.

  28. B Moe says:

    On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them.
    https://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=2829

    I am interested in finding out more details on these lucky recipients.

  29. JD says:

    This kind of crap was predictable.

  30. Phil says:

    I just passed this along to Drudge, anyone else want to try? Politics is all fun and games, until people’s lives are ruined. And this decision has definitely ruined many lives (witness that dealer’s letter on American Thinker)

    This is not fun and games, this is very serious.

  31. happyfeet says:

    It’s very sickening. Does it create a market for dirty socialist business insurance for when your cocksucker dirty socialist president steals your shit? It will be interesting to see how the market responds.

  32. JHoward says:

    ‘Course, I’m not saying there’s nothing to be found there. But it would take a good deal of work to dig into, and I have the feeling that some people are likely to go off half-cocked here and embarrass themselves.

    My god, man, this isn’t about global warming, it’s about Chrysler dealerships the government folded.

  33. happyfeet says:

    broken quanta seems well-meaning but why raise the bar any higher than our cocksucker dirty socialist media like NPR and the MSNBC would raise the bar if it were a Republican administration what was robbing good American people blind? The appearance of impropriety should more than do the trick I think.

  34. Mr. Pink says:

    This could be statistically proven and it will not be reported. I can’t wait till football season starts so I have something else to bitch about.

  35. alppuccino says:

    Of course, Barachrylser asked the dealers to up their inventory and now those closed dealerships are stuck with the cars. Sweet revenge would be to sell all those vehicles at an enormous loss thereby drying up the remaining dealers’ market, while giving themselves a nice tax break for next year. psycho’s 52% of America:
    a. Can’t afford a new car
    b. Can’t pass the written test
    c. Hate gas engines
    d. All of the above

  36. Carin says:

    Football season offers us little relief here in Detroit.

  37. Mr. Pink says:

    36
    It offers us little relief here in D.C., I just want something else to bitch about daily.

  38. The Monster says:

    Ideally, we need to know for every dealer:
    1. Whether they were terminated.
    2. The total contribution to Republican candidates over each of the last three election cycles
    3. Same for Democrats.
    4. Same for third party/independents.
    5. Break down the 2008 primary between Obama and other Dem candidates.

    Only then can we make meaningful statements about correlations in the data.

    I find particularly interesting an aside in the article, which is that dealers don’t cost the auto companies anything, but are in fact revenue sources. It seems to me that arbitrarily doing away with some of the people who sell your brand is not something that should be done by a company already in economic trouble. The more dealers there are trying to make sales, the more cars they can be expected to sell.

  39. happyfeet (and JHoward, who I take to be saying the same thing), I take your point. I know I’m relatively quiet here, but I yield to no man in my contempt for statist bullshit. If this story breaks big on flimsy statistical evidence and hurts the Obama project, I’m certainly not going to pound my desk trying to debunk it. Some people will, though, and there’s a non-zero chance that they’ll be right.

  40. JD says:

    I am going to apply the “imagine the outrage if Bush had done this” metric.

  41. sdferr says:

    Are the GM dealerships currently looking down the barrel of this gun or has their hash already been settled?

  42. JHoward says:

    a. Can’t afford a new car
    b. Can’t pass the written test
    c. Hate gas engines
    d. All of the above

    a. Can’t abide your new car
    b. Can’t pass the envy test
    c. Hate engines
    d. All of the above

    FTFY.

  43. JD says:

    Given the fact that the people Baracky put in place to oversee this business have no relevant experience in the automotive industry, it has to be no surprise that politics would be part of the calculus.

  44. While this wouldn’t surprise me, I expect probably most small businessmen and car lot owners aren’t fans of President Obama or the left.

  45. Asymmetric Polyhedron (formerly mojo) says:

    NO! “Highly partisan” decision-making from the Obama White House?

    Well, shut ma mouf.

  46. NukemHill says:

    If this story breaks big on flimsy statistical evidence and hurts the Obama project, I’m certainly not going to pound my desk trying to debunk it. Some people will, though, and there’s a non-zero chance that they’ll be right.

    If they use the same statistical tools to debunk this as they have to support AGW, then we’ve no fears….

  47. Sphynx says:

    So . . . if you’ll go ahead and move your desk a little closer to the wall . . . that would be gre-eaat.

    Oh, there’s that stapler . . .

  48. Tim Mcnabb says:

    I wondered this myself but was too lazy to follow it up. That said, the first person I read about to lose their dealership gave several thousand dollars to the aforementioned dealership association. OpenSecrets.org will have the straight dope.

  49. sdferr says:

    Takings curiosity? Judge Sotomayor was on this 2nd circuit panel about which Richard Epstein writes:

    I have written about Didden in Forbes. The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined. Bart Didden came up with an idea to build a pharmacy on land he owned in a redevelopment district in Port Chester over which the town of Port Chester had given Greg Wasser control. Wasser told Didden that he would approve the project only if Didden paid him $800,000 or gave him a partnership interest. The “or else” was that the land would be promptly condemned by the village, and Wasser would put up a pharmacy himself. Just that came to pass. But the Second Circuit panel on which Sotomayor sat did not raise an eyebrow. Its entire analysis reads as follows: “We agree with the district court that [Wasser’s] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants’ demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation.”

    Maybe I am missing something, but American business should shudder in its boots if Judge Sotomayor takes this attitude to the Supreme Court. Justice Stevens wrote that the public deliberations over a comprehensive land use plan is what saved the condemnation of Ms. Kelo’s home from constitutional attack. Just that element was missing in the Village of Port Chester fiasco. Indeed, the threats that Wasser made look all too much like the “or else” diplomacy of the Obama administration in business matters.

  50. geoffb says:

    “Indeed, the threats that Wasser made look all too much like the “or else” diplomacy of the Obama administration in business matters.”

    Ibelieve this very action may have been the deciding factor in her nomination. This proved that she was one of his tribe, 100% down for the Chicago cause way.

  51. geoffb says:

    Re: #10, Brooks? Damn, going to the other “N” word and in the Times.

  52. Makewi says:

    Football season offers us little relief here in Detroit.

    At least you used to have Barry Sanders to watch. Oh wait, that probably doesn’t help.

  53. mezzrow says:

    At least you used to have Barry Sanders to watch. Oh wait, that probably doesn’t help.

    Flag. Fifteen. Unsportsmanlike conduct.

  54. Rusty says:

    carin. The Red Wings are beating the crap out of the Blackhawks so you’ve got that gooing for you. The hawks will choke in game 5.

    Find out the political affiliation of the dealerships that are getting the franchises. If someone is being punished, someone is being rewarded.

  55. cynn says:

    Why the hell would ANYONE want a Chrysler franchise as some kind of political payback? Any auto-related enterprise is a losing proposition. No thanks, Obama!

  56. B Moe says:

    The people I quoted above disagree with you Cynn, and since they actually own a Chrysler franchise I tend to take their word over yours.

  57. Les Nessman says:

    “Why the hell would ANYONE want a Chrysler franchise as some kind of political payback? Any auto-related enterprise is a losing proposition. No thanks, Obama!”

    It’s a losing proposition … until Brocko starts handing out TARP monies or other gov’t handouts to the ‘preferred’ franchises.

  58. cynn says:

    Well fine and dandy BMoe, but who’s the market for the godforsaken things? Unless Obama pulls up in his pimpmobile towing a brand-spanking new Sebring or something, I’m out. And no cost? I question that one.

    By the way, what does Chrysler actually make? Cascade? Cavalcade? Charybdis? Scylla?

  59. SBP says:

    Well fine and dandy BMoe, but who’s the market for the godforsaken things?

    Wait until there’s a $10,000 tax on a Ford and a $5,000 “stimulus payment” for buying a Chrysler.

    See also: Lada, Yugo.

    Dipshit.

  60. Dan Collins says:

    Among other things, the luxury 15 mpg Chrysler 300, which Obama himself drove before he became president.

  61. happyfeet says:

    oh. Mr. quanta. I didn’t mean well-meaning to sound so condescendy it just did. Sorry.

  62. cynn says:

    Hie thee hither, Spaz, it’s the shiny new economy where anyone can pretend to play!

  63. A statistician says:

    I’m going to leave my name/handle private as I’m looking for work (graduating PhD student… and only academia and gov’t are hiring right now). I don’t think there’s enough info there to carry out any type of analysis. Basically to make any headway with this you would need the FULL Chrysler dealer ownership listing much like the list of dealers to be shut down. After that, I’d apply a technique called “bootstrapping” since whatever mean or sum statistic you are looking at, the distribution thereof is going to be a fair bit irregular.

    If somebody can put the full data of Chrysler dealers with respect to owners together then you have something to go on. That being said, you can’t do anything that will carry any inferential heft (which is what you are looking for) with the information of 789 owners losing their franchise but rather you need all ??? number of owners from the entire pile.

    This is something an investigative reporter should have a field day with… if there were any left. Maybe somebody can torture Glen Beck’s and/or Bill O’Reilly’s staff… better yet… tell each other that the other guy’s staff has been working on it for a day already but they aren’t sure where to look. :) Bottom line is that somebody dedicated enough (or employed to work on this) with the time should be able to figure this out. This is the type of stuff that some think tank should produce since they have the researchers to crank out the data.

  64. B Moe says:

    Dodge sells pretty damn good, cynn, especially their trucks. I see a lot of Chargers, those Magnum wagon things and those ones that look like a Bently that the brothers love.

    Most of the dealers have been making okay money, it is the factory that is losing its ass.

  65. sdferr says:

    GatewayPundit throwing Chrysler dealership anecdotes against the wall to see if any of ’em’ll stick.

  66. cynn says:

    By all means, snoop out this evil and nefarious plot. God knows who makes money off it, except for the reliable opposition. not

  67. B Moe says:

    Why even engage in analysis when uninformed speculation and confirmation of existing biases will work just as well?

    We don’t want folks to think we are Progressives.

  68. B Moe says:

    Although “uninformed speculation and confirmation of existing biases” did work pretty well when we predicted Sotomayor as the pick shortly after the inauguration. Weren’t you at all impressed by that, meya?

  69. meya says:

    “Although “uninformed speculation and confirmation of existing biases” did work pretty well when we predicted Sotomayor as the pick shortly after the inauguration. ”

    We who? But yeah, very impressive. Sing the reasons.

  70. B Moe says:

    We who?

    Most of the right blogs.

    But yeah, very impressive. Sing the reasons.

    Just Googled minority woman judge. Was easy. Don’t know why Obama found it so difficult.

  71. B Moe says:

    Play to the existing biases, just like you said. Piece of cake. I can see why you guys find bigotry so appealing.

  72. newrouter says:

    soto manure on legal “reasoning”. take that “white” guy

  73. geoffb says:

    “Why even engage in analysis when uninformed speculation and confirmation of existing biases will work just as well?”

    Analysis is fine and should be done.

    As far as, “uninformed speculation and confirmation of existing biases “. I was on the Left at one time. I have watched and studied how they operate for over 40 years. A bit more than the 10,000 hours said to be needed to acquire some expertise in a subject.

    My “uninformed speculation” also says the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, uninformed because I am not an astronomer, speculation because it is a prediction based on empirical evidence. Only when it does indeed rise in the East will I have confirmation of my existing bias that it will do so.

    There is a certain way about the Left. A criminal mob mentality that informs their actions. Long memories of minor slights and the willingness to always settle scores, old and new, whenever the chance arises. Obama is just more blatant. Whether that is wise or not time will tell.

  74. lee says:

    dealers don’t cost the auto companies anything, but are in fact revenue sources.

    Humm, Obama also ordered advertising to be cut.

    I think I’m beginning to see a pattern here.

  75. meya says:

    “My “uninformed speculation” also says the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, uninformed because I am not an astronomer”

    Really. It takes an astronomer huh.

    “dealers don’t cost the auto companies anything, but are in fact revenue sources.”

    The link at the pub mentioned ending ‘factory incentives.’ which makes me think there were costs involved.

  76. Rusty says:

    Seems I was correct. See Gateway Pundit. When the decision to close dealerships comes from the whitehouse and not Chrysler, it is a political decision. They’re from Chicago! Fer crysakes. Of course they’re gonna punish the republican donors! You don’t need a statitician.

  77. Rusty says:

    #77
    factory incentives = something called ‘dealer holdback’ basically a built in profit for the dealer that they get once the car is sold. Approx $3000.00 per vehicle.

    Now beat it.

  78. B Moe says:

    The link at the pub mentioned ending ‘factory incentives.’

    So just end the incentives, not the franchise.

    which makes me think…

    I feel your pain.

  79. cbiggie says:

    Heads up via Reuters

    Plan to ax dealers not
    Chrysler’s decision -lawyer

    http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN2632731920090526

  80. happyfeet says:

    I doubt Malkin actually knows anything about the car business.

  81. JD says:

    Malkin prolly knows more about cars than meya and Sammy know about honesty.

  82. happyfeet says:

    meya lies and lies. I don’t read the Sammy one. Not yet anyway.

  83. JD says:

    Consider yourself fortunate. Blessed, even.

  84. happyfeet says:

    oh. But what I mean is read this and see if it actually supports her [Vern Buchanan’s] dealerships have been embroiled in fraud lawsuits gloss because it doesn’t and she’s being dishonest.

  85. By the way, what does Chrysler actually make?

    The voice of the everyman. Gawd, you drive a Chrysler? Gag me with a Lexus.

  86. Rob Crawford says:

    ‘feets — that story lists some accusations made conveniently in time for a political campaign. Since the accusations are against a Republican, they are Pravda.

  87. happyfeet says:

    yes – also the *fraud* allegations are not at all detailed and the nature of the case as described doesn’t seem fraud-related … and no pattern of “fraud” is established at all with respect to the other lawsuits… I think the pattern is for Malkin to say “be cautious” or “go slow” cause it’s an easy and risk-free stance and she know people think she’s a histrionic screechy harpy, cause of sometimes she is, so these sort of posts are how she buys a spot of cheap grace I think

  88. lee says:

    Rattling on about shit you know nothing about never stopped you meya, so, you know, careful about throwing stones.

  89. happyfeet says:

    oh. and she *knows* I mean… I really haven’t heard her attain anything like her Dubai Ports World crescendo so far in the dirty socialist era we’ve entered… maybe she’s pacing herself

  90. JD says:

    “I doubt Malkin actually knows anything about the car business.”

    That won’t stop her.

    meya speaks from experience, on this topic. Good Allah. I am still impressed that she figured out how to use velcro shoes.

  91. […] couple of days ago, I asked for a statistician to analyze the data regarding the closings of Chrysler dealerships and the apparent relation to […]

  92. […] ILLEGAL IMMORALITY– many of the Chrysler dealers on the closing list were heavy Republican donors; Hope, Change […]

Comments are closed.