The newest right-wing meme is the conspiracy theory that Obama forced Chrysler to shutter dealers that are Republicans. Why do they think this? Because the list of closing dealers is overwhelmingly Republican. Case closed, right?
Only if you are Michelle Malkin or one of the morning douchebags on FOX.
Nate Silver spends all of five minutes blowing a hole in this garbage:
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.
[...]Overall, 88 percent of the contributions from car dealers went to Republican candidates and just 12 percent to Democratic candidates. By comparison, the list of dealers on Doug Ross's list (which I haven't vetted, but I assume is fine) gave 92 percent of their money to Republicans -- not really a significant difference.
There's no conspiracy here, folks -- just some bad math.
More like bad faith. Surely these jackasses are aware dealers are overwhlmingly Republican—they're business-owners after all. They're also overwhelmingly white, middle-aged men in suburban and rural areas...
Silver used political donations to determine party affiliation—searching for auto, car and automotive "dealer" as listed occupation. One of the mouth-breathers crashes the thread and accuses Silver of being disengenuous because his statistics "fail to distinguish between owners and employees..." The fact that those people would list themselves as "salesperson" or "mechanic," and not "dealer" is beyond them.
The worst argument against a Supreme Court nominee ever was made the other day by economist Greg Mankiw. Does the fact that Sotomayor spends most of what she earns say something about her qualifications?
Apparently, the new Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is an example of the latter [a spender, not scrimper--Mr F.]. The Washington Post reports that the 54-year-old Sotomayer has a $179,500 yearly salary but...
"On her financial disclosure report for 2007, she said her only financial holdings were a Citibank checking and savings account, worth $50,000 to $115,000 combined. During the previous four years, the money in the accounts at some points was listed as low as $30,000."
My grandmother would have been shocked and appalled to see someone who makes so much save so little.
I'm more appalled by a supposed economist passing judgment on someone because of the amount she has in the bank...perhaps she's a generous philanthropist? A big traveler? OR perhaps maybe a single woman with no children and someone who has a lifetime appointment in her career at a big salary, and generous pension and has no need to sock money away for the future like Mankiw's grandmother?