Did Obama target opposition donors in Chrysler dealer closings?

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: trooper11
Ok all of the tin-foil bs aside, does anyone actually know why and how the dealerships were chosen to be shut down?

Apperently we dont, so how can either side make judgements about this?

All we know is the there have been dealerships closed that were doing just fine. That one fact alone makes me interested in the criteria that was used to determine which dealership should be closed. Now that the government is heavily involved, the administration has a duty to be transparent in the activities it is persuing/overseeing with regards to any of these companies.


I would think all of you would want that sorted out regardless of which end of the spectrum you are at. Once we know why, then we can start claiming unfair treatment or sound reasoning. Until then, you cant blame people for questioning the choices being made.

it'd be nice to know what the criteria was before the fire sales have to start happening

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: XMan

For that matter, why the hell are they shutting down dealerships that turn a profit?

they should be shuttering dealerships that do poorly in customer surveys, regardless of how profitable they are. those guys are the face of the company and a bad experience at a dealer can turn a consumer from your car faster than practically anything else.

Excellent point. :thumbsup:

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: Craig234


I don't mind transparency on this (and favor it generally). I do mind baseless insinuations for political gain.

The same people who are the first to make such insinuations and indignantly demand transparency here are largely the ones who refused to listen to liberals demans for it under Bush on areas where there was strong justification for the suspicions and a real need for transparency.

Few on the right can point me to any posts made during the Bush administration calling for transparency by the administration and agreeing with any liberal concerns about it.

So I am noting the 'double standard', even while not objecting to the request in this case.

For just one example, when *billions* just disappeared in Iraq, literally pallets of cash, pretty much 100% of the demand for transparency I recall was from the left. Why is that?

Well, I dont know about other people, I can only speak for myself, but I believe when it comes to the government, there are some things that they need to lay out to the people. this is one of those things. when they are intimently invovled running a company that we the people are paying for, then we need to know some details to give us confidence in the matter.

As far as 100% transparency, I think thats pretty much impossible. I can accept that there are things the government cant completely disclose to the public (i.e. relating to the military, security, etc), but this isnt one of those cases. I happen to agree that when it comes to spending of any kind, that there needs to be disclosure to the public in most cases, I would have felt more confident about military spending by just knowing where it was going, just as I would about the current bailouts and the tarp money. Unfortunately, we arent getting clear answers on anything these days.

As far as the 'double standard' remark, you are correct. There are those on both sides that instead of pointing out the Hypocrisy/Double Standards, they create their own. I really get frustrated seeing democrats and republicans do the same old song and dance of double standards.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Why the Dealerships Closed
by BooBoo

Chapter One: 2008-The Year That Was

GM, with about 14,000 total dealerships (some with multiple franchises), sold 213 vehicles per 'franchise'.

Chrysler with about 8,300 total dealerships sold 176 vehicles per franchise.

Ford with 7,200 dealerships sold 276 vehicles per franchise.

Toyota with 1,461 dealership franchises in the United States sold an average of 1,518 vehicles per store.

Honda with 1,300 dealerships sold an average of 1,100 vehicles per store.

Nissan with 1,250 dealerships sold an average of 857 vehicles per store.

The End




The Fancy Chart

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Why the Dealerships Closed
by BooBoo

Chapter One: 2008-The Year That Was

GM, with about 14,000 total dealerships (some with multiple franchises), sold 213 vehicles per 'franchise'.

Chrysler with about 8,300 total dealerships sold 176 vehicles per franchise.

Ford with 7,200 dealerships sold 276 vehicles per franchise.

Toyota with 1,461 dealership franchises in the United States sold an average of 1,518 vehicles per store.

Honda with 1,300 dealerships sold an average of 1,100 vehicles per store.

Nissan with 1,250 dealerships sold an average of 857 vehicles per store.

The End




The Fancy Chart

and please explain how that tells us how they chose which dealership closed....

we all know why they have to close them. we knew that months ago when our administration decided to try and prop them up. its easy to see a failing company when they fail as spectacularly as they have.

 

[ZeGermans]

Ockham's razor would indicate that republicans are just terrible at running businesses.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Ockham's razor would indicate that republicans are just terrible at running businesses.

you could be on to something. i mean look at all the mega rich democrats out there. thankfully they exist becuase its alot easier to convince them to pay whatever amount of taxes we need.

 

[ZeGermans]

You know what? Not a single ACORN-run Chrysler dealer was shut down! That street thug Obama watches out for his pals again!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
You know what? Not a single ACORN-run Chrysler dealer was shut down! That street thug Obama watches out for his pals again!

:laugh:

Dealer sales volume, customer service scores, local market conditions, right-wang :| O-U-T-R-A-G-E :|, innuendo and propaganda be damned !

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: trooper11

Originally posted by: Craig234


I don't mind transparency on this (and favor it generally). I do mind baseless insinuations for political gain.

The same people who are the first to make such insinuations and indignantly demand transparency here are largely the ones who refused to listen to liberals demans for it under Bush on areas where there was strong justification for the suspicions and a real need for transparency.

Few on the right can point me to any posts made during the Bush administration calling for transparency by the administration and agreeing with any liberal concerns about it.

So I am noting the 'double standard', even while not objecting to the request in this case.

For just one example, when *billions* just disappeared in Iraq, literally pallets of cash, pretty much 100% of the demand for transparency I recall was from the left. Why is that?

Well, I dont know about other people, I can only speak for myself, but I believe when it comes to the government, there are some things that they need to lay out to the people. this is one of those things. when they are intimently invovled running a company that we the people are paying for, then we need to know some details to give us confidence in the matter.

As far as 100% transparency, I think thats pretty much impossible. I can accept that there are things the government cant completely disclose to the public (i.e. relating to the military, security, etc), but this isnt one of those cases. I happen to agree that when it comes to spending of any kind, that there needs to be disclosure to the public in most cases, I would have felt more confident about military spending by just knowing where it was going, just as I would about the current bailouts and the tarp money. Unfortunately, we arent getting clear answers on anything these days.

As far as the 'double standard' remark, you are correct. There are those on both sides that instead of pointing out the Hypocrisy/Double Standards, they create their own. I really get frustrated seeing democrats and republicans do the same old song and dance of double standards.

Don't disagree with much in your post, but the right and left are far from equal on the 'double standards'.

You don't see a single Democrat here opposing transparency on this, the way you saw nearly every Republican arguing with Democrats who wanted Bush transparency.

When Democrats would mention shady dealings, the responses were mostly some form of "Bush Derangement Syndrome!" - just denial and evasion.

In fact, Obama and Congressional Democrats have already taken several steps that add transparency to government operations. Has *one* Republican posted praising that?

 

[dali71]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: trooper11

Originally posted by: Craig234


I don't mind transparency on this (and favor it generally). I do mind baseless insinuations for political gain.

The same people who are the first to make such insinuations and indignantly demand transparency here are largely the ones who refused to listen to liberals demans for it under Bush on areas where there was strong justification for the suspicions and a real need for transparency.

Few on the right can point me to any posts made during the Bush administration calling for transparency by the administration and agreeing with any liberal concerns about it.

So I am noting the 'double standard', even while not objecting to the request in this case.

For just one example, when *billions* just disappeared in Iraq, literally pallets of cash, pretty much 100% of the demand for transparency I recall was from the left. Why is that?

Well, I dont know about other people, I can only speak for myself, but I believe when it comes to the government, there are some things that they need to lay out to the people. this is one of those things. when they are intimently invovled running a company that we the people are paying for, then we need to know some details to give us confidence in the matter.

As far as 100% transparency, I think thats pretty much impossible. I can accept that there are things the government cant completely disclose to the public (i.e. relating to the military, security, etc), but this isnt one of those cases. I happen to agree that when it comes to spending of any kind, that there needs to be disclosure to the public in most cases, I would have felt more confident about military spending by just knowing where it was going, just as I would about the current bailouts and the tarp money. Unfortunately, we arent getting clear answers on anything these days.

As far as the 'double standard' remark, you are correct. There are those on both sides that instead of pointing out the Hypocrisy/Double Standards, they create their own. I really get frustrated seeing democrats and republicans do the same old song and dance of double standards.

Don't disagree with much in your post, but the right and left are far from equal on the 'double standards'.

You don't see a single Democrat here opposing transparency on this, the way you saw nearly every Republican arguing with Democrats who wanted Bush transparency.

When Democrats would mention shady dealings, the responses were mostly some form of "Bush Derangement Syndrome!" - just denial and evasion.

In fact, Obama and Congressional Democrats have already taken several steps that add transparency to government operations. Has *one* Republican posted praising that?

If you can show where Bush promised "the most transparent White House in history" (or any kind of transparency), then I'll concede your point. Until then, watch this and count the broken promises:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU

 

[HomerJS]

All Republicans voted against the auto bailout. So just what are you bitching about???????

 

[jonks]

Was up at 2am and caught this though I'm not a regular viewer. Wraps up all the math and hypocrisy and illogic in the conspiracy theory nicely.

http://rackjite.com/archives/3489-Olbermann-WTF

1. Reps are pissed off dealers closed are overwhelmingly republican donors, fail to notice ALL car dealers are overwhelmingly republican donors

2. Reps complaining about the loss of jobs despite nearly all reps voting against auto bailouts which would have caused ALL dealers to close and ALL jobs to be lost

3. wtf

 

[Harvey]

LOL! The right wingnuts are so desperate, they're inventing bogus "issues"... AGAIN! It's all fluff. :laugh:

(Note - Linked stats substituted for graphical links in the article.)

News Flash: Car Dealers are Republicans (It's Called a Control Group, People)
by Nate Silver @ 6:50 PM

A meme that is currently picking up traction in the conservative blogosphere is that the list of dealerships to be shuttered as a result of Chrysler's bankruptcy contains a disproportionate number donors to Republican candidates. There have been furious efforts to prove this contention by looking up campaign contributor lists at the Huffington Post, Open Secrets, and other places.

There is just one problem with this theory. Nobody has bothered to look up data for the control group: the list of dealerships which aren't being closed. It turns out that all car dealers are, in fact, overwhelmingly more likely to donate to Republicans than to Democrats -- not just those who are having their doors closed.

Here, for instance, is what Huffington Post's Fundrace site turns up for those who list their occupation as "auto dealer":

Occupation: auto dealer
763 results found, showing 1 - 100
$850,612 was given by people who identified their occupation as "auto dealer".
$761,742 from 546 people to Republicans
$88,870 from 72 people to Democrats

Republican donations outstrip Democratic ones by about 8.6:1. Next, let's try "car dealer":

Occupation: car dealer
200 results found, showing 1 - 100
$215,503 was given by people who identified their occupation as "car dealer".
$171,328 from 141 people to Republicans
$44,175 from 42 people to Democrats

For some reason, those persons who describe themselves as "car dealers" are just slightly more likely to donate to Democrats than those who call themselves "auto dealers". Nevertheless, the list of contributions tilts Republican by better than a 3:1 margin.

Next up, "automobile dealer":

Occupation: automobile dealer
192 results found, showing 1 - 100
$299,842 was given by people who identified their occupation as "automobile dealer".
$272,507 from 138 people to Republicans
$27,335 from 20 people to Democrats

Roughly a 10:1 advantage for Republicans. Finally, we'll look at the slightly more obscure formation of "automotive dealer":

Occupation: automotive dealer
$17,000 was given by people who identified their occupation as "automotive dealer".
$15,900 from 11 people to Republicans
$1,100 from 2 people to Democrats

Keith Olbermann narrates the story for the reading challenged. :laugh:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
You know what? Not a single ACORN-run Chrysler dealer was shut down! That street thug Obama watches out for his pals again!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

you know, we should start our own blog and start turning this already crazy conspiracy into something even loonier just as a prank. Saying ACORN behind this would certainly be a good start. And all the idiot conservatives would probably believe it too :laugh:

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Paddington
Wouldn't surprise me. That's Chicago style politics.

Hope and change.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
All Republicans voted against the auto bailout. So just what are you bitching about???????

Look towards the Soviet era economy to understand the ramifications of a market based on government whims rather than market conditions. Politics, rather than economic principles are the new guiding force of the economy. If you thought a recession was bad, wait until such policies bring about long term economic depression and stagnation.

Primary example for this year, closing down the most profitable dealerships instead of the least profitable.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: HomerJS
All Republicans voted against the auto bailout. So just what are you bitching about???????

Look towards the Soviet era economy to understand the ramifications of a market based on government whims rather than market conditions. Politics, rather than economic principles are the new guiding force of the economy. If you thought a recession was bad, wait until such policies bring about long term economic depression and stagnation.

Primary example for this year, closing down the most profitable dealerships instead of the least profitable.

ZV already explained this

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: XMan
For that matter, why the hell are they shutting down dealerships that turn a profit?

Because whether the dealership makes a profit or not has little bearing on whether Chrysler makes a profit.

If an area is oversaturated with Chrysler dealers, it drives down the market price for new Chrysler cars because of the intense competition among the dealerships. This places much greater reliance upon factory-to-dealer incentives which can keep dealerships profitable while simultaneously eroding or eliminating profits on the manufacturing side. By closing dealerships, even profitable ones, Chrysler reduces the amount of price competition on new cars and this allows Chrysler to curtail their factory-to-dealer incentive programs.

Basically, if there are 4 dealerships within 30 miles it's very easy for a buyer to play those dealerships against each other and drive down the price of a new car. It's still possible for all those dealerships to remain profitable through holdbacks and other factory incentives, but those come at the expense of the manufacturer. If the nearest competing dealership is 100 miles away, it becomes much more difficult for a consumer to negotiate a price discount as the utility of the nearer dealership is likely to negate any cost savings that the 100-mile-distant dealership can offer.

ZV

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Couple of good points I found via an OP-ED

1. The criteria on which dealers are closed has not been made public, that needs to happen and soon.

2. Would Obama be so fast to close these dealers if they were minority owned Democrat donors?

It doesn't matter. They already know they can get away with it because of the lopsided GOP donation ratio to begin with. They can save their Dem buddy dealerships and shut down their competition, and will get away with it because the ratios of GOP vs Dems closed will be within the margin of error. They will point to the stats and be like "see look it's in line with statistical errar" and there would be no way to prove it either way. Really a win situation for them.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: JS80

Math makes my brain hurt

Fixed

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Couple of good points I found via an OP-ED

1. The criteria on which dealers are closed has not been made public, that needs to happen and soon.

2. Would Obama be so fast to close these dealers if they were minority owned Democrat donors?

It doesn't matter. They already know they can get away with it because of the lopsided GOP donation ratio to begin with. They can save their Dem buddy dealerships and shut down their competition, and will get away with it because the ratios of GOP vs Dems closed will be within the margin of error. They will point to the stats and be like "see look it's in line with statistical errar" and there would be no way to prove it either way. Really a win situation for them.

Once again, the right wingnuts are out of facts, and their math and logic skills = EPIC FAIL. :laugh:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Do people even think that Obama is going around looking at the color a dealerships and marking them as to be shutdown?

I may be conservative, but such thoughts are out right looney.

With all the flak that happened with the DAs under Bush; this would be a similar scenario. Are the Dems really going to take a chance on such a plot?

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: XMan
For that matter, why the hell are they shutting down dealerships that turn a profit?

Because whether the dealership makes a profit or not has little bearing on whether Chrysler makes a profit.

If an area is oversaturated with Chrysler dealers, it drives down the market price for new Chrysler cars because of the intense competition among the dealerships. This places much greater reliance upon factory-to-dealer incentives which can keep dealerships profitable while simultaneously eroding or eliminating profits on the manufacturing side. By closing dealerships, even profitable ones, Chrysler reduces the amount of price competition on new cars and this allows Chrysler to curtail their factory-to-dealer incentive programs.

Basically, if there are 4 dealerships within 30 miles it's very easy for a buyer to play those dealerships against each other and drive down the price of a new car. It's still possible for all those dealerships to remain profitable through holdbacks and other factory incentives, but those come at the expense of the manufacturer. If the nearest competing dealership is 100 miles away, it becomes much more difficult for a consumer to negotiate a price discount as the utility of the nearer dealership is likely to negate any cost savings that the 100-mile-distant dealership can offer.

ZV

I don't care to speculate about political reasons for targeted closings but I think this explanation deserves further discussion. If this is the reasoning for targeting dealerships, I think consumers should be kicking Chrysler to the curb.

By your explanation, Chrysler was taking hits to their profit margin so they could give a negotiating advantage to certain dealerships. Rather than closing profitable dealerships, why not just set a fixed dealer price for all of the dealers and let the market sort itself out as to which ones remain profitable?

Negotiating expenses would be the burden of the dealership. With this type of competition, consumers would see more consistent prices at all dealerships which would most likely equate to better pricing overall. Dealers would succeed or fail based on much more fair conditions. In a dealership saturated area, the dealers with a good reputation for integrity and customer service would likely be the survivors.

I would much rather see dealerships live or die based on whether or not they've earned to right to survive than based on the whim of some unknown executioner.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
You know what? Not a single ACORN-run Chrysler dealer was shut down! That street thug Obama watches out for his pals again!

lol...I was thinking ACORN needed to be inserted into this conspiracy somehow.