The conclusion that the article is suggesting *may* or *may not* be
true.  It shows how statistics can be abused.  For example: What if
Chrysler dealership owners across the board tend to donate to Republican
candidates - IOW 90/10 statistic of the closed dealerships may in fact
be *true*, but it may be that it's statistically 90/10 Repub/Dem
donations for *all* Chrysler dealerships - ones that are bing closed and
ones that are not being closed.

I'm not saying that that is necessarily the case, but without giving all
the statistics to establish that other part of the picture (i.e., what
was the Repub/Dem giving ratio of the dealerships that are remaining
open?), the article is being nonscientific at best, dishonest at worst.

It's kind of like saying: "30% of accidents involving injuries or
fatalities involve drinking.  That means that 70% of such accidents do
not involve drinking - *THEREFORE* the roads would be safer if people
made a point of driving while drinking.

Shut down the stealerships and a Republican connection is coincidental.

It's widely stated that, in general, business owners and executives tend
to be (or to vote) along republican lines.

If this holds for dealership owners, then I would expect that more of
the dealerships to be closed would be owned by republicans vs
democrats.  This downturn in the economy in general would seem to hit
republicans especially hard if business owners or exectives tend to be
republican vs democrat.

I believe that most demographic studies tend to show that democrats (or
liberals) tend to concentrate in urban areas while republicans (or
conservatives) tend to be found moreso in rural areas.  If so, then
again this wave of GM and Chrysler dealership closings seem to be
focused on low volume dealers and/or to dealerships located in sparsely
populated areas (ie rural areas).