I’m not one for conspiracy theories when it comes to the list of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise last week, but you’ve got to admit when one of the top 2 percent of dealers in the country is shut-out, questions need to be asked.
T…

GuyFawkes, so now I am a “block of wood”? Funny you should say that. Blocks of wood are one of the primary tools used to develope high mathematical skills in children. Maybe if you had taken your thumb out of your mouth long enough to play with a few blocks as a kid, you would be more interested in statistics instead of insults.

All anyone who opposes you is saying….is that certainly some things don’t add up and an investigation wouldn’t hurt anyone except the guilty. So, why are you afraid?

That last comment is meaningless, unless you also provide this piece of data:

What is the ratio of donation for dealers that were NOT shuttered?

If you don’t have that, then you have what we colloquially call “jack shit”. But hey, c’mon, don’t let that stop you: post something *else* that proves you have the mathematical skills of a block of wood.

excerpt:

Of course, Olby and Bilbo neglected to include one additional slide. They somehow forgot to ask the key question: what was the ratio of GOP-to-Democrat donations for the dealerships that were closed by Obama and his minions?

I mocked up my own slide to give you the answer that Olby and Naif “forgot” to show.

The ratio of donations for dealers that were shuttered was 42 to 1, GOP to Democrat.

Gee, I wonder if that difference is statistically significant?

I haven’t done any statistical analysis of all the closings and neither have you. But, clearly something is amiss in several of these closings as pointed out in detail by Doug Ross and other bloggers.

I don’t tend to believe Obama was trying to “attack” Republican dealerships as much as I think he was trying to “protect” a few Democrat ones. Either way…..it is unethical. Could be a coincidence, too (albeit a strange one). But, only a real investigation/inquiry of all the details would be able to decide.

Surely, you would have no objection to “transparency” and a real statistical analysis. Me, I’m just more concerned about the obvious handful of “something ain’t right with this case”.

“And the plural of datum is not ‘proof’!”

Doug Ross again:

These four Democrat dealer groups own 40 Chrysler dealerships. One of those owners is already in all sorts of legal and financial hot water with suppliers and customers. He’s not exactly a candidate most screening processes would keep.

Yet they will likely end up with 42 dealerships after the shuffling (maybe more). And their competition is gutted in every single market! Strange!

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/dealergate-update-corrupt-dem-donating.html
—

Hmmmmm….wonder what the odds of that are?

Okay, this is getting pathetic. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

4 random individuals does not prove anything, when dealing with 3500+ dealerships. Every time you type something, you just keep proving that you don’t know the first thing about math or statistics. Honestly, I’m not even getting any enjoyment out of it anymore – just pity.

Here’s a statement that you really should take to heart, and try to figure out why it’s true:

“The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’.”

Excerpt:

To summarize: despite the claim that each dealership was evaluated at the individual market level, at least four major, connected Democrat contributors — representing dozens of individual dealerships — remained whole, while their in-market competitors were decimated.

But I’m sure it’s all just a coincidence!

Paging Nate Gold… Nate Gold, over at 531.com: can you explain that data?

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/closing-chryslers-dealerships-readers.html

It’s involvement in the private sector has been heavy-handed at the least, and even thug-like in some instances. I know, I know, TARP began under Bush, but that’s no reason to continue this kind of entanglement.

Unfortunately, I don’t see this White House eager to give up its control. Why would they? This is a liberal government’s dream come true.

The pushback is not wholly convincing; the allegation is that Obama donors are getting a break, not necessarily generic Dem donors to, for example, John Edwards.

However, it is almost surely true that most of the surviving dealers are also Republicans, so statisticians will be left to grapple with the question of whether two populations (the 75% that survived to close another day, which includes maybe 10% Democrats and a smaller portion of Obama donors) is significantly different from the 25% that were closed, which seems to be roughly 90% Rep with no notable Obama donors.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/05/dealergate.html

Fox News performed a random survey of dealers who were closed and dealers allowed to remain open. It pretty much shuts the door on the subject:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/05/28/dealergate-statistical-coincidence-or-political-bias/

A preliminary study by FOXNews.com found that the data do not support the charges. Among the dealerships set to close, 12 percent of a random 50 selected for review donated to Republicans and 8 percent to Democrats. Of the dealerships remaining open, 14 percent of a random 50 selected donated to Republicans and 10 percent to Democrats. In both samples, the average size of donations was similar for both parties.

According to the sample, one major factor in determining whether a dealership was closed or not was the size of the dealership, measured by the number of product lines carried (the four lines are Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge and Dodge Truck). The average store that will be closed in the FOXNews.com sample carries 2.5 of those product lines whereas the average store that will stay open carries 3.64.

A Chrysler representative said part of the decision on consolidating dealerships was to reduce overlap and have the remaining dealers sell all three company brands.

This is a quote from one of the articles on the decision:
“The company is also trying to reduce the number of single-brand dealerships to bring all three Chrysler brands — Jeep, Chrysler and Dodge — under a single roof, they said.”

Chrysler attempted to do the same thing back in 2008 under a plan called “Project Genesis,” but did not have bankruptcy protection at the time that would give them an upper hand over dealer franchises.