2: I’m not at all sure that the dealerships that were closed were picked solely by Chrysler, or that there was no political influence on the picks. The fact that all six of Mack McClarty’s dealerships avioded the axe, but that Republican Congressman’s dealerships didn’t, would right there make me at least somewhat suspicious.

3: You need to look at several hundred dealerships in order to get numbers big enough that you can extract reasonable inferences.

4: I’ll be very surprised if it ends up that < 25% of auto dealers were campaign donors.

My understanding of Nate’s claim was that 88% of the dealers gave to Republicans, not that 88% of the total donations went to Republicans.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to do, so i can’t tell you how to do it.

I just note, again, that Nate Silver used those numbers to “prove” that there wasn’t a problem, and that’s not what the numbers show.

Can you prove that claim? Can you provide the equation used by whoever picked the closed dealerships? Can you show that it was executed without any favor based upon the donations of the dealership owners?

No?

Then why are you putting your credibility on the line in a situation where there’s a fair deal of evidence that some political favoritism has been played?

You are incorrect in saying that we have to get to a 95% confidence level before we can say there might be something going on. A 95%+ confidence result would put the burden of proof on the Obama Administration to prove they hadn’t been playing games.

Anything outside of, oh, say 1 standard deviation makes it worth studying, and makes it questionable enough that Chrysler and the Obama Administration should be forced to report exactly what did happen.

The problem with Nate’s reply is that the numbers he gave do not prove what he says they prove. And he knows that.

The fact that he went all snarky and smugly self-righteous, while making a post that every person who knows anything about stats knows is complete crap, marks Nate Silver as being a dishonest left-wing political hack.

Is Nate’s data fuzzy? Fine. Then he should have stated at the beginning of his post that he was engaging in gratuitous hand-waving, and couldn’t really say anything definite. If you see where he said that in his post, please do point it out.

What I read was Nate saying “these numbers clearly show the conservatives are wrong.” So don’t give me grief for treating his numbers as good, before showing that they don’t say what he says they say.

OK that’s just plain stupid there. We looked up the data for all dealers and we looked up the data for the dealers that got closed. We only need to subtract the data for the latter from the former and we get the data for the dealers that weren’t closed. In a sane world no one would pay any further attention to someone who dropped such a logical clunker.

A big majority of the dealers on both lists didn’t donate to either party. I ran random samples of both groups. I checked 19 of 789 closed dealerships and the scores were 4 (22.2%) donated GOP and 1 (5.7%) donated Dem. I know I ran a small sample but I’ve got the only one I’ve found on the net yet that was randomly chosen. If one were to use my percentages, I’d expect out of 789 closed dealerships we’d have 175 GOP donors and 45 who donated Dems.

By the way, I also took 32 scores randomly from the open dealer list of 2392. 4 (12.5%) donated GOP and 0 donated Democratic. I don’t know what you could make of that. That’s not much but its the best measure I’ve seen of the control group. If you disregarded weighting and combined both my samples, you’d get 8 to 1 GOP donations, about what the other guys found.

The conspiracy theorists are also way off over whose decision it was to close dealerships. Chrysler has had a plan, Project Genesis, in the works since at least as far back as February, 2008. Here’s a link: http://www.carseek.com/news/february2008/Chrysler-announces-Project-Genesis/

Since Chrysler has been planning this long before Obama was in office, and both the White House and Chrysler deny any White House role in selecting the dealerships to be closed, and the chairman of the new Chrysler Group was a member of G.W. Bush’s election organization and has consistently contributed to Republicans running for Congress and the White House, there is strong reason to believe Chrysler is the one picking the losers and winners.

On the other side, that the White House made the selections, is the word of one lawyer (bias? honesty?) for the closed dealerships who doesn’t even allege he was told by anyone that the White House directed the choices. The lawyer just said he got the “impression” while deposing a Chrysler exec that the company didn’t want the closures. That’s proved wrong by the link above. There’s also a member of the task force who is married to a Democratic fundraiser, but that’s not really evidence of anything, and doesn’t mean that the White House made the choices.

To be really accurate, one would need to have data for each dealer. Then, I would group them as D,R, or I and use a chi-square test to see if the distribution is non-random. Or you could use a logistic regression with donations as the predictor. Not that I am volunteering to compile the data.

For fun, can you turn the problem round? Right now you’re asking the question with the assumption that the a priori probability of picking a single white ball from the urn is 0.5, and computing the probability of picking few white balls from the urn.

Suppose we fix the probability of picking a given number white balls from the urn to be 0.5 (if feasible), but allow the a priori probability of picking a single white ball out of the urn to float. What would the probability of the biased pick be? 0.95? 0.995? Is an equally likely outcome probability even be feasible?

In other words, in a different but semi-analogous problem coin flips, I can presume that the flip is fair and then compute the probability that 9 out of 10 flips will be heads. In this case, the probability of one heads will be p = 0.5 and the probability of the result will be (n,k) p^9 (1-p)^(1) ~ 0.01. On the other hand, knowing that the flip isn’t fair, solve the equation (n,k) p^9 (1-p)^(1) = P, where P is the desired outcome probability. In this case, the maximum of P is about 0.39, for a value of p = 0.9. Note that I can’t even find an a priori value of p such that the outcome P = 0.5.

PS. For those with Matlab, here’s some code you can run. Just cut and paste the snippet below:

pp = 0:0.01:1;
nn = length(pp);
PP = zeros(1,nn);
for ii = 1:nn;
p = pp(ii);
PP(ii)=nchoosek(10,9)*p^9*(1-p)^1;
end
plot(pp,PP)
grid on
xlabel(‘A Priori Flip Probability’)
ylabel(‘Outcome Probability’)
title(‘Probability of nine out of ten heads given the coin flip probability’)

-Silver was using a general system and would not have an exact ratio. This is based on available donation from Huffington Post and not an exact number so his range of error comes from there.

-How do you define R and non-R. Many are including those who gave to Clinton or Edwards as R since they are closed and assumed “targets” of Obama. The Ideal study would be Obama donators closed versus open.

-Donations not party affiliation. These are based on donation history only. Some have even given to both parties and takes the judgment of the analyzer to decide affiliation.

Doug Ross who started this all even listed this as a potential “target” of Obama…• Jerome Fader: $6,500 to Democrats; $2,500 to Independent Joe Lieberman.

How do you assume this guy is a target of Obama?!?!

-Lastly there is already a admitted large number of Republicans working as car dealers, but one of the requirements in closing dealers was income of local residents. That would push the possible closing into more republican areas. This is why your random picking of red balls is not correct. This was not completely random, but was not based on party affiliation.