Crunching the numbers: Dealergate & cronyism continued
Photoshop credit: George at Elegant Memories
The statistical gurus at financial blog Zero Hedge have taken a hard, long look at the question of Dealergate and cronyism. They’ve made their preliminary findings available here. Using regression analysis, they tackled the relationship between dealership survival and Clinton donor status – and found a significant correlation:
This puzzled us. Why would there be a significant and highly positive correlation between dealer survival and Clinton donors? Granted, that P-Value (0.125) isn’t enough to reject the null hypothesis at 95% confidence intervals (our null hypothesis being that the effect is due to random chance), but a 12.5% chance of a Type I error in rejecting a null hypothesis (false rejection of a true hypothesis) is at least eyebrow raising. Most statistians would not call this a “find” as 95% confidence intervals are the gold standard for this sort of work. Nevertheless, it seems clear that something is going on here. Specifically, the somewhat low probability that the Clinton data showing higher survivability of Clinton donors could result just from pure chance. But why not better significance with any of the other variables? Why this stand out?
Then we got to thinking. Steven Rattner, the Car Czar, is married to Maureen White, one-time national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. What does Maureen do now? From her website:
Maureen White is currently Chairman of the Board of Overseers of The International Rescue Committee (IRC), a member of the North American Advisory Board for the London School of Economics, and a National Finance Chair of the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign. (emphasis ours)That website looks dated, but you get the idea.
Again, we want to point out that our findings are preliminary and subject to change. But whatever the result, the Administration has made themselves very vulnerable by taking charge of the dealership closing decisions.
Doug Ross weighs in and reiterates a point I made last week: “It is incumbent that “Car Czar” Rattner and the Obama administration immediately disclose — with their vaunted ifull transparency’ — the methods used to select dealerships for closure.”
Thomas Lamb pursues the cronyism of color angle.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Democrats reverse Obama on auto dealerships
July 20, 2009 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
51 Comments
Dealergate continued: More on Chrysler and Clinton cronyism
June 4, 2009 03:27 PM by Michelle Malkin
67 Comments
Dealergate and the MSM
May 28, 2009 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
177 CommentsBe careful with Chrysler closure “hit list” claims
May 26, 2009 03:11 PM by Michelle Malkin
61 Comments
Battered Hedge Fund Managers’ Syndrome
May 8, 2009 09:32 AM by Michelle Malkin
133 Comments
Categories: Chrysler
Patterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksPundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the NonconformistsJustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New LightNRO
» The Church of ObamaHot Air
» Bishops to Obama: No diceHot Air
» Quotes of the day
Once again, the new media is leading the way.
The results are at the very least, eye opening. The need for more research is apparent; I doubt the thuggish Obama administration will ever live up to its pledge for transparency.
What are the odds that they never expected all this examination and now they are trying to reverse engineer a ‘plan for dealer reductions’ that fits the results that are a matter of public record?
Just, chicago-style payback here…
The Onomama admin. looks more and more everyday like a replay of Germany in the 1930′s.
MM, you say they
That’s not what they say:
Most statistians would not call this a “find” as 95% confidence intervals are the gold standard for this sort of work
And real statisticians, such as David Freedman, understand that this kind of simple correlation model is dubious. You would at least have to control for geography. Presumably, the dealerships being closed are in areas harder hit by the economic downturn, which may be disproportionately Republican (I don’t know whether this is true, but it’s the kind of thing good statisticians do.).
I’d like to see the full analysis with all variables (not otherwise rejected by F-tests), and coefficient figures for the T- tests of the various factors considered for the regression. I’m just fussy in this statistical regard.
We still need more evidence -i.e. statistical plus “smoking gun” anecdotal evidence- that answers what the true depth of the relationship of dealer closures with respect to past profitability for Chysler-if the closures are being done because of cronyism and not profitability, then that creates a legitimate taxpayer concern even for independents who currently support the automaker bailouts/intervention.
The danger of leaving out an unobserved error in regression analysis, is that can creste bias for a conclusion that isn’t the full story.
I too am wary of going for a simple (one variable) linear regression, and for this reason I agree at this point with LGM. This is why I said I’d like to see to see the full multi-variate analysis with hypothesis testing, etc.
Combined with the work of others who found a high correlation of closed dealerships with Republican campaign contributions and the proclivity of Democrats/liberals to take revenge on their political enemies, there’s still enough smoke to suspect the Dems of committing arson again.
The point is, this thing should be thoroughly investigated to get to the truth. The Obama-loving media will never do it.
“And real statisticians, such as David Freedman, understand that this kind of simple correlation model is dubious.”
Ok. So? What does that have to do with both the Obama administration NOT being transparent AND that they have NOT been transparent lgm?
Of course the answer nothing.
Maybe you can explain to us why the most transparent administration in history, one you obviously supported and support, is NOT in anyway transparent. Please, I’d like to hear your explanation.
Seems to me your voice is one of those most loud when it came to transparency in the recent past. Where is your voice now in regards to the same concept lgm?
“I too am wary of going for a simple (one variable) linear regression”
Me too. You see lots of it “out there”. Like people who take vit c at certain levels live 6 years longer than others. So take Vitamin C and you’ll live longer. Which of course does nothing to take into consideration that a person disciplined enough to take a certain level of Vit C daily, is the kind of person who lives a life that is obviously concerned about such things is more than likely to do a whole bunch of stuff that contributes positively to longevity and the Vit C by itself is probably near meaningless.
So yes, single variable “studies” are quite suspect.
Again, SO? LGM did what liberals do when cornered, they change the dialog, reframe the discussion away from the issue on which they are vulnerable to some seemingly related but irrelevant issue.
Transparency IS the issue. Or the lack there of.
So lgm are you for or against transparency for decisions that impact Americans from this administration?
If this were a Republican administration, the Dems like lgm would be screaming for an “independent” (i.e. Democrat) prosecutor. Since it’s a potential Democrat scandal, they’re only demanding a larger rug to sweep it under.
“The Obama-loving media will never do it.”
They may be forced to do so in the courts. Car dealerships are not going away quietly.
There is also the potential of a serious constitutional issue with the executive branch messing with bankruptcy stuff that is the judicial branches responsibility. If the thing goes to court, that issue will be flushed out as well.
That’s an unwarranted assumption, and is directly contradictory to your previous statement about simple correlation models. I guess that only applies when you don’t like the results.
Not to mention the unconstitutional nationalization of a large chunk of the economy.
It could be that owners who are republican would represent a larger number than non republican dealerships even if the process was fair and transparent. There probably are a larger number of Republicans who have become indpendent business owners. That COULD all be innocent. But we don’t know. Even the dealerships who have asked for an explanation have gotten none.
Its the “none” part that is the problem.
And how is it any dealership owner’s political affiliation is known or matters? That seems like a huge privacy violation.
“Not to mention the unconstitutional nationalization of a large chunk of the economy.”
I sure hope one of our Republican Senators asks old Sotobabe a question like that.
And what’s with Graham doing the “Here’s what she has to say in order to avoid questions on her racisms…” counsel? I mean WHAT? That guy has got to go.
So Sotobabe, I’d like you to take a day or so before you answer my following question. We’ll get back to your answer. Here is the question. “If you believe that the current administrations interference in the auto industry private sector is supported Constitutionally, what is the Constitutional support?” “If you don’t believe the Constitution supports that interference in bankruptcy issues of the auto industry, interference in the private sector as represented by the current auto industry strategy, what would you tell the President about his activity?”
Then when she answers I would ask just a few follow-up questions. “Did you prepare this answer yourself? If not, who helped you in preparing the answer you provided for us today?”
Of how about this. “Judge Sotobabe, several of the car dealerships that are being closed are considering taking legal action to obtain transparency regarding the selection process that was used to close them. IF you were their legal counsel, how specifically would you handle their case?”
Yes Michelle, in the world of statistics, “significant” has a more precise meaning.
Then of course lgm goes on to say
which is laughable. Detroit, California – where are the “harder hit” Republican areas?
Of course that doesn’t mean Clinton donors weren’t spared on purpose…
Zero Hedge did say this is preliminary, and it’s a good idea for them to put their work out for criticism – it’s like a peer review.
The Big Deal of course is the government involvement.
They are going to be stealing all the money they gave GM & Chrysler anyway, so everyone should boycott these vehicles from now on. We’re not going to get the taxpayer money back anyway.
Anyone who buys a GM or Chrysler at this point is just going to reward the Obama admin’s tyranny..
What ever the truth is, it will never come out in the MSM and thats where the “useful idiots” get their information.
“Anyone who buys a GM or Chrysler at this point…”
That’s really the last laugh in all of this. Regardless of all the goofy stuff they do now, the end of the day both companies are going under. At some point some one has to buy one of their cars to stay in business. Folks aren’t going to. The folks on the left already don’t by and large.
Not necessarily. The government could mandate that all government cars be GM or Chrysler. They could also offer tax credits to consumers. As it is, they will probably give GM and Chrysler an advantage over Ford by giving them access to cheap taxpayer loans and by guaranteeing their bonds.
Think Fannie/Freddie. Think of the new source of campaign contributions and post-Congress cushy high-paying jobs. The only greed allowed in the future is greed by politicians and their cronies.
But that is how they do it in Chicago!
But jsmiddleton4 don’t you feel all the Liberals, tree huggers, Black Panters, ACORNites and LGMs will rush out and buy an ObamaMobile? Those Volkswagon buses and Volvos have to be getting old.
I just heard the ad this afternoon:
See the Rascist USA in a Gubment Built Chevrolet.
It was in Spanish of course.
The purchase of Ford products by the anti-bailout crowd, could mark the beginning of a real war against socialism and Smokey O’s agenda.
There is a knot in my stomach over the arrogant, disrespectful plan or our new president. We are headed for an unprecedented disaster.
How can this really be happening!
txvet2 said (#16):
But the very next sentence says: “I don’t know whether this is true, but it’s the kind of thing good statisticians do.” In other words, it’s not an assumption, it’s a question. It’s the kind of question a good statistician would ask before announcing results.
txvet2 had given us a textbook example of quoting out of context. One sentence without the next suggests a different meaning. The Sotomayor quote everying is huffing over is like this. The whole speech says the opposite of what the isolated quote seems to say.
txvet2 said (#17):
Does it say somewhere in the constitution that the government is not allowed to run a business?
Pasadena Phil said (#26):
It already does, sort of. Government cars have to be American made. Government travel has to be on US carriers too.
The political affiliations of dealers is beside the point. That letter from the profitable dealer who is stuck with a bankruptcy not of his making, but because of government meddling is the point.
The whole GM Chrysler debacle is not going to go away and gotcha stats analysis isnt going to further the case against our rapacious marxist impostor President.
The dealers need to gear up to do battle and fight for their rights. Showing proof of political cronyism will solve nothing if the dealers dont lock and load, go to court and sue the britches off the boards of directors who sold them out. Even if the stats were 100 per cent dead on, someone still has to prove INTENT.
Maybe they’ll have second thoughts about “sacrificing” for pennies on the dollar in the name of private investors.
Speaking of which, once the trickle down effect on the investment organizations who bought bonds in these companies start seeing the larger aggregates of investors (retirement accounts, funds, etc) who have been damaged— democrat and republican alike— the wind will shift and the smell will get inside every nook and cranny in the white house. And it wont be because of the Clingon’s overpriced Oprah Approved tennis shoes.
Bear1909 out.
Morality and politics are mutually exclusive. Most Americans do not have access to the power and “connections” that policitians and uber-wealthy people have. We play by the rules; trust in the US Constitution and the electoral process, but get ever abused by the people with such power. The moral structure of this Country’s institutions of power, political and financial, has disintegrated.
I think that by 2010 when the truth of the terrible consequences of this Administration’s policies starts to escape into the open, you are going to see a huge electoral backlash against this monumentally corrupt Adminstration. The Obama administration is starting to resemble a fascist version of the mafia.
Yeah but all Obama is doing is continuing/expanding what Bush and the GOP started. And both Bush and McCain have urged Republicans to support their president. Are we ready to vote for
3rd2nd party candidates yet?What Bush started as you say, was really the enactment of Democrat/liberal policies; huge government being one of those tenets. Let me express my hope that actual conservatives run and win office. It is not my desire to see a bunch of Bush wannabes in the Congress. Having said that, as disappointing as Bush was to me, I doubt that even McCain would have lurched this Country this hard towards naked socialism, as Obama and his minions have.
sbw999: Exactly. All is not lost so long as we continue to drive “both” parties crazy. That they are both at war with us is a testament to how effective we have been. We are winning and will get a candidate of our own eventually.
Amen to that.
“Does it say somewhere in the constitution that the government is not allowed to run a business?”
Ah again the leftist mantra regarding the Constitution. If it doesn’t expressly prohibit an activity, then it therefore by its silence allows it. The old “breathing living changing” argument.
It is flawed logic lgm. The answer to your question is your question is flawed. Your question isn’t even what one would call an “argument”.
The constitution is a document that limits government by design. Its context is “The government can only do these things.”
This point has been answered so many times one has to wonder why you’d even attempt to use it to make a point on this forum lgm?
For those of you who think that the Quinnipiac Poll is fairly accurate, I just finished taking their poll on Sotomayor. I hung up the phone, checked their website, and the results of the poll have already been posted. That’s about as dishonest as you can get.
Let’s see lgm, the Constitution doesn’t say special groups of people should get special “rights”. So gay marriage is unconstitutional since the consititution doesn’t say they should have special rights. So no way gay marriage is constitutional.
As you can see your point, it isn’t much of a point sir.
“The Sotomayor quote everying is huffing over is like this. The whole speech says the opposite of what the isolated quote seems to say.”
Bull. Just plain bull. And her racism is not on display in just ONE quote lgm. Its a life time of behaviors, comments, speeches, membership in groups, decisions, etc.
Scary that you probably actually believe what you posted about her comments and most likely have a drivers license and are out there driving a car.
LGM has a point about the statistics, although regression analysis is a bit fuzzy for me, I do remember that if you can’t disprove the null, you got a problem.
And lgm do you really think we are so easily distracted by bright shiny objects that the we lose track of the issue? Life experiences in terms of the law are irrelevant. The judicial branch is not suppose to be influenced by judges life experiences one way or the other.
So she is a racist AND she lets something other than the law guide her decisions. Its AND lgm, not OR.
Nearly 1/2 of her decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court. HALF. And this is suppose to be one of the best most equipped legal minds in the country? Her decisions have been over turned 1/2 of the time?
Then there’s the “making policy from the bench” admission.
So let’s put Newt up there for Supreme Court and let him make policy from the bench.
Nice try to echo Gibbs press conference.
Bureaucracy/government & business are like gasoline & alcohol; they don’t mix!
You might want to reread the 10th Amendment.
I have no need to quote you out of context. When you use the word “presumably”, you are claiming that the thing presumed is probable, not just possible. The next sentence is irrelevant. If you had used another word such as “possibly”, or “maybe”, then there would not be an “assumption”, and the next sentence would have relevance, even if possibly redundant. Damned inconvenient, these dictionaries!
I for one am looking forward to hearing her explain herself. So you didn’t really mean you can make better decision than a white guy because you are a latina woman? What did you mean then? Are you now in disagreement with your statement and now think white guys can make as good as judgements as a latina woman even if they don’t have your experinces? What about a black man who worked hard and came from difficult circumstances to become a Supreme Court justice, what do you think about his ability to make decisions and how would you qualify the decisions he makes?
Man I wish I could ask her questions….
I wish that somebody,anybody would.
Obama seized the entire American auto industry and gave it illegally to his union contributors? And conservatives are piddling around trying to prove cronyism with the dealerships????
He seized an entire industry and gave it to his contributors for crying out loud!!!!
As a matter of fact, HEELLL YES….!!!
It is ALSO EXPRESSLY prohibited for the Federal government to interfere in otherwise legal contracts.
Where are you FROM? Freaking Russia?
And that “slip of the tongue” that the Statists have been LYING about is also repeated in a LAW REVIEW article for La Raza (The RACE). It DON’T GET MORE DELIBERATE THAN THAT!!!
Actually, yes.
Article 2, Section 2 specifies exactly what the executive branch may do, and running a car company isn’t listed.
I double-checked.
LGM,
As a Chrysler dealer correctly pointed out, a car delarship does not cost an auto maker a siingle penny. In fact the car company makes a profit of dealer licenses and fees, even if the dealer NEVER sells a single car.
So if you want to be in the car selling b usiness you would want as many dealers as posible advertising your products locally.
So, the obvious question is why close any dealers? At best all it proves is Obama and the people managing this thing are idiots. At worst they are using the power of the Federal government to engage in cronyism.
I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on this issue. If you can defend this you can defend the Manson Family.
Reason #1 to buy all the Toyota stock you can get your hands on.
If this were a race discrimination suit, people like LGM would be all over it. The p<.05 isn’t really the gold standard…it’s just the most conservative number used. And in a racial discrimination complaint, p<.1 would be sufficient to win a lawsuit (because the process of discrimination is insidious and often disguised by simple data). This is discrimination, these data constitute a prima facie case of discrimination, and the GM decision makers should be investigated accordingly. Sauce for the minority goose is also sauce for the republican gander.
LGM=Less Gray Matter
THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE PEOPLE DOING STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ON WHICH DEALERSHIPS WERE CLOSED. WE, AS CITIZENS OF THIS REPUBLIC, AS OBAMA’S BOSS, HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW:
1. WHY IN THE HELL OBAMA’S ADMINISTRATION IS CHOOSING WHICH DEALERSHIPS ARE CLOSED, AND
2. WHAT CRITERIA OUR EMPLOYEES USED IN DETERMINING WHICH DEALERS WERE CLOSED.
OBAMA HAS USED POWER THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE HIM TO STEAL TENS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS FROM THE RIGHTFUL, LAWFUL OWNERS AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. THAT IS THE STORY HERE.
That’s right War… The issue is not about using some hair splitting to MAKE an issue. The issue is already in our face and it is the way the whole matter is hidden.
Diversity, the new revertse racism code word.
Guys…
Please….
There is NO SUCH THING as “reverse discrimination” or “reverse racism”.
That is like saying “reverse death”.
There is only discrimination and racism. They are as evil when practiced by anyone…using any rationale, as they ever have been.
Post-racial…??? Not as long as Rangel and his like can stir the pot. Another thug that will hold a seat until he’s called to stoke the furnaces…
txvet2 said (#43):
“Presumably” was about regional variation, which presumably there is. “May” was about regional variation hurting Republicans more, which I am not saying is true.
American Elephant said (#46):
The United States bought a car company top keep it from laying off more workers. In dollar terms, the total worth of GM and Chrysler is approximately $0.
ritwingr said (#48):
Article 2 says that the President runs the country. That’s the meaning of “executive”. If the country owns a car company (alas!), that includes running said car company.
Just like in nazi germany, hey we can find some scapegoat group, make them wear an identifying mark, and have them work off thier sin in existing by making the car for free!!!
obamomics at work???
lgm stands for little gullible moron.
Only in the understanding of a 2nd grader can one read Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States and come to the conclusion that “the President runs the country.”
This is the kind of idiotic thinking that Obama relies upon to destroy what is left of capitalism and the Republic. And little gullible moron is the perfect example of an Obama follower made to order by the NEA.
Here lgm I’ll fix it for you.
99.99% of the dealers being closed are owned by Republicans. Where did I get these numbers from. The same source that BHO and the Democrats get theirs. So It must be true.
From AP 6/1/09:
So how’s that theory working out for you now, lgm?
From the same AP article:
So the US government, the Canadian government and the UAW (surprise, surprise) get something for nothing. The investors who kept GM afloat for decades and put their own money (or money they were entrusted with by such things as employee retirement plans, etc.) get nothing. So your statement is at least partially correct.
This isn’t Marxism, or even socialism. This is fascism, plain and simple. With absolutely no hint whatsoever of your beloved “transparency”.
I’d like to personally thank you and your ilk, lgm – those of you who were drooling idiots and put this poseur into office – for taking what was left of my once proud country and ruining it.
RIP America. We hardly knew ye.
Obama has stolen tens or hundreds of billions in property from the citizens who rightfully owned it and bestowed it upon other people and entities he favors a the moment who have no legal claim to the property.
Under what statutory authority did Bush and Obama lend taxpayer money to GM and Chrysler? There was none. The office of the President of the United States spent public funds with no statutory authority! Then Obama claimed ownership after-the-fact. This is theft by executive fiat. This is illegal and immoral and nobody is doing a thing about it.
There has already been a revolution and the federal government has overthrown the constitution. When will people recognize this fact and do something about it!
Absolutely not true!
The equity value might be $0, but the restructured value (even the liquidation value) is clearly something worth negotiating and fighting over.
lgm’s statement is wrong, and it’s not just a simple matter of terminology.
I could only hope that the MSM will start requiring a p-value maximum of 12.5% before they start pushing their pet theories.
Yet something tells me they’re fine with exploiting a single anecdote.
Interesting. Perhaps another Clinton connection: