The Houston Astros played a game in Round Rock against the Express, their AAA farm club. Thinking about it, I believe it would actually be a good idea for each team to play a home series or two in the city of their AAA team. I suspect that attendance would probably be considerably better in a city that gets 3-6 games a year than the average game at one that gets 81. Cities that house AAA teams are generally smaller, but include a lot of cities big enough to have teams in other sports (Sacramento, Portland, Salt Lake City, Memphis, Nashville) and cities larger than some that do have teams (Austin/Round Rock and Oklahoma City). In addition to higher attendance, it would also probably increase the team's profile in some pretty significant markets.

It may make more sense for some clubs than others (Omaha won't be a big draw from the Royals, for instance), but it would make quite a bit of sense for others. Has this been tried?

RAW touches on an interesting phenomenon with regard to Presidential elections: how much support a candidate can expect merely for partisan affiliation, and how much slack a candidate can get for disagreement with his base.

Interestingly for me, this set off a tangent thought regarding "Partisan Affiliation." Long ago, in his final words to the nation, George Washington warned the nation to avoid entangling alliances (oops!) and strongly suggested that political parties not be allowed.

The theory behind this is that political parties short-circuit the idea behind the checks and balances in the constitution; it's not very useful to have a congress, president, and courts able to overrule each other if they're both members of the same political party.

Regrettably, we have political parties, so one of my major factors in trying to choose a Presidential candidate is simple: try to preserve the balance of power. If the Democrats control Congress (or at least one branch of it), I'm more likely to vote Republican for President. If the Republicans control the House, I'm more likely to vote Democrat.

And yet, in 2000 and again in 2004, I didn't vote for the Democrat. Why? Because despite it being "their election to lose" for me - all other factors being equal, they would have won my vote by default - they put forth a candidate that I couldn't possibly support. Each of them had policies I couldn't support, a record I couldn't get behind, and a platform the was formed mostly of the various shibboleths by which any candidate must pass through to get the Democrat nomination - kiss Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton's ass, proclaim that global warming is the antichrist, be pro-choice or else be booed off the floor, etc.

In 2006, the situation was so odious I just skipped it.

In 2008, compared to 2000 and 2004, the situation will be reversed. Since the Democrats have the House and Senate (barring something weird, like some of their aging/embalmed jokes like Kennedy suffering a heart attack or not escaping a murder charge), the election is then - by the balance of power vote - the Republicans' to lose. By default, I should vote Republican.

As of yet, however, the candidates being put forth from both parties are completely disinteresting. Both Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton appear to be peaking early, and I suspect the more people know about who Obama actually is, the more they will wonder whether he's to be trusted. Race-baiting and gender-baiting can only take you so far.

On the flip side, for the Republicans, the field is terribly thin. John McCain spent himself last election, and his behavior since may have terminally killed his chances with his base. Guiliani has great name recognition, but as policies go, he could probably run with either a D or an R next to his name and nobody'd know the difference, which isn't a good way to get the nomination.

On the lower part of the ladder, there's Thompson (the arguments against which RAW summarized pretty well). There's Ron Paul, who bills himself as the "taxpayer's friend" but whose voting record says pretty consistently otherwise, and whose other statements (border, national security) are directly contradicted by his voting record as well.

I don't know what's scarier; the idea that the Republicans, given a great shot like this, might manage to lose this one when it's theirs to win, or that somehow, the Democrats might manage to go 3-for-3 and lose it right back.

And if both of them lose it (as concerns my vote), who do I give my vote to?

Fred Thompson is an odd choice for the torch-carrier for the conservatives in the Republican primary and an indication of how desperate they are to field a single worthwhile candidate in the race. The most obvious and much-cited example of this is his support for the odious McCain-Feingold, which accomplished nothing except to infringe on the right to free speech. Many believe that it was McCain's crusade on this issue that permanently put him on the outs with conservatives and here they are lining up around one of the other Republicans to actually vote for it.

A number of conservatives are making the comparison between Thompson and Ronald Reagan, as they did with George W. Bush eight years ago, and once again (though for different reasons) the label doesn't really fit. Thompson may be a great many things, but he does not appear to be a visionary. He comes across, rightly or wrongly, as a president that would be more of a sober-minded administrator rather than groundbreaking president. He really doesn't seem to have "the vision thing." I actually think that's part of his appeal since since this is a more serious-times-call-for-serious-people election rather than a Jesus Jones "Right Here, Right Now" election. If he ends up in a general election against John Edwards or Barack Obama I think that it would serve him quite well, though less so if pitted against Hillary Clinton or Al Gore.

By and large, there is a degree of latitude that a candidate can take when it comes to ideology. By emphasizing different issues and taking either moderate or more idealistic stances on issues where the candidate is conflicted, someone like Thompson could either come across as a conservative firebrand or a relatively moderate conciliator. I am a little concerned that he will dance a little too closely with the ones that brung him, the conservatives, and cede too much center-ground in the 2008 election. I'm worried that his center-appeal will be forsaken in an attempt to fill the present vacancy for the role of a stalwart conservative.

All of this is something of a moot point if Thompson doesn't run. Up until the last few days I really didn't think he would, but I think the newest polls give him some encouragement to toss his hat into the ring. Not only is Thompson polling well for a candidate that's not even a candidate, but he's pulling support from the right places. One of the chief impediments to a Thompson candidacy is his close friendship with John McCain. There's no doubt that if he can't be the nominee himself, Thompson would want to see McCain get the nod (Thompson was one of McCain's chairmen in 2000) and a worst-case scenario for Thompson would be running, losing, and bringing McCain down with him. But interestingly he is pulling most of his support not from McCain, but from New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. that actually gives him an opportunity to have his cake and eat it, too. Not only could he run without hurting his friend, he could run and help his friend at the same time.

I've been watching The West Wing recently, and at the beginning of the second season Josh Lyman and Sam Seaborn are talking about the presumptive Democratic nominee John Hoynes. They meekly declare (or resign themselves to the fact that) of Hoynes, "He's our guy," with a clear sadness that they don't have anyone they can really rally behind (enter, of course, Martin Sheen). That's more-or-less how I feel about McCain, who (current polls notwithstanding) I believe to be the presumptive nominee. In many ways, Bush has become many of the things that I feared McCain would, so I don't have as much to fear in that area. Also, the McCain-Feingold damage is done so it's a moot issue for me. And there's a lot about McCain to like, notably that in 2000 he was the most serious of the four major candidates (Bush, Gore, Bradley, and McCain) about the deficit and he's a stubborn enough sunnuvagun that he might veto excessive spending, though that's a pretty tall order. The downside is that Bush himself has shown us some of the perils that come with stubbornness (though I think the upsides of his stubbornness, which were very real, have been forgotten by many and conservatives in particular). And there is the sense among many of us that he is the Natalie Maines of the Republican Party, always eager to make sure that outsiders understand that he's not like others of his ilk.

Where a potential Thompson candidacy seems most strong in the primary is that a lot more of us can point to him and say with at least a little enthusiasm, "He's our guy!" With Thompson we theoretically wouldn't have to worry about what's going to happen in the debates. We wouldn't have to worry that he'll mangle his sentences or come across as clueless or petty. If nothing else we know he can act his way through it. And unlike our current party leader, he exudes a certain authority that it's easier to rally behind. The question at this point is whether or not we would be able to get the rest of the country to rally behind him, too.

Reader Smooth Cat pointed out in the comment section below that unlike other states, Louisiana has an open election, meaning that there are no primaries and there is often, though not always, a runoff so that the winner has to get over 50% of the vote to become governor. Several years ago this lead to the infamous runoff election between Edwin Edwards and David Duke when incumbent Governor Buddy Roemer was squeezed out in the open election. It's hard to defend a system that leads to that kind of election.

Then again, my aunt was in town last week and the subject turned to the Texas gubernatorial elections of last year, wherein Rick Perry was sworn in with roughly 40% of the vote that many people thought was the prelude to a runoff. Say what you will about the Louisiana system, but it wouldn't permit that. Then again, it's unlikely that Chris Bell or Carole Keeton Strayhorn would have been able to win in a runoff, so I guess it's just as well.

John Breaux has announced that he will run for Louisiana Govenor if he is legally allowed to. The legal hold-up is that Breaux declared residency in Maryland and Louisiana state law requires that the governor be a citizen of Louisiana for the previous five years. Republicans are already planning lawsuits to keep Breaux off the ballot.

Though I have an arcane belief that election laws matter (whether it means helping Republicans in New Jersey or Democrats in Texas), I've pretty much given up on the notion that they will actually be followed. As such, unless there is some existing loophole in the state law that I don't know about that allows Breaux to run, I think that he ought to be barred from running. The initial decision is up to Louisiana's Democratic Attorney General, who will most assuredly look for any loophole he can find, and if he finds one it will probably end up in the courts where it's anyone's guess as to whether or not they will actually care about the law.

I'm actually a little curious as to why Breaux did declare his residency in Maryland. It's safe to assume that he wasn't expecting a gubernatorial bid, but even so it seems like he would want to leave the door open for either that or returning to the senate in the state that will elect him (LA) over a state where he has no ties (MD). I understood Tom Delay's decision insofar as (erroneously thought) it was a way for him to drop out of the race and be replaced, but no such circumstances existed for Breaux.

After the New Orleans exodus, the state of Louisiana is likely to become much more red and the Republicans are going to start enjoying an edge in that state. But John Breaux, Marylander or not, is popular enough to keep the governorship in Democratic hands. So it's not hard to see why Republicans are scrambling to keep him off of the ballot.

The other concern is that the Republican nominee is almost certain to be Bobby Jindal, who lost in a squeaker to Blanco a little over three years ago. Jindal is a great candidate in a number of ways and Republicans are pretty anxious to see him as the first Indian American governor in the country. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that the whole Indian-American thing didn't go over as well in Louisiana as we might have liked. Jindal managed to score the endorsement of then-popular Democratic Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans, which may have done him more harm than good, possibly costing him the Bubba vote. With New Orleans having been half-vacated, it's possible that the Bubba vote is going to become more important than ever and it's difficult to imagine that they will be less likely to vote for Breaux than they were Blanco.

Whatever the case, it should be the most exciting gubernatorial race next year!

A loyal Marginal Revolution reader asks about the relation between age and productivity.

There is a conventional wisdom to the effect that geniuses peak early, and are spent by the age of 30. This seems to originate from the retrospective glory accorded to some poets who died young, and to the physicist Paul Dirac's statements to that effect. There are several reasons this belief might be popular, not least because it reassures non-geniuses that they do not have so much to envy. But there is less reason to suppose that it is true.

It appears to me that productivity rises steadily with age, at least well into the forties, in any given field. However, the fields which permit greatest productivity are the newest. This is largely because, in a new field, less of the easy work has been done; in addition, the steady rise in societal productivity is largely caused by the invention of new, intrinsically more productive ways of working.

It is very difficult for a top producer to leave his field; thus breakthroughs visible to the nonspecialist tend to be made by those who have not yet specialized. This accounts for the continued perception that genius is for the young.

[Mr. Cowen answers a different question, here.]

Hello, and thanks to Mr. Whitlock for lending me your ears. I'll try to make it worth your while.

Some recent background: I have been following the topics chosen by Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution, who has promised to honor fifty reader requests. Fortunately for me, Mr. Cowen cheats. Probably the best post of mine to result from this so far is Name That Tune.

I will probably use Ten Second News for Unpleasantries.

Conservative Dinesh D'Souza wrote a widely disdained book called The Enemy At Home (The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11) in which he outlines the role that America's social liberalism played in the attacks of 9/11. As one might expect, it was received with great hostility among the left. It also, however, with little exception was met with derision by the right. The only thing surprising to me is Dinesh's surprise at the right's reaction, expressed in a four part series in the National Review where he complains about being silenced:

I expected, in this book, to stir the angry passions of the Left. Any book with the subtitle “The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11” cannot expect to be well received by leftists. Sure enough, the New York Times and the Washington Post have raged against my book. Alan Wolfe portrayed me as a follower of bin Laden, and a senior editor of Esquire even threatened to fight me and send me to the hospital. I am constantly crossing swords with leftist professors and pundits who combine small-mindedness with viciousness, and so this line of attack was entirely expected.

Much stranger have been the petulant, even belligerent, attacks from the Right. [...] What I say may be flawed or wrongheaded, and I am happy to learn from my mistakes, but why the savagery of the attacks? What heresy have I committed that the angry men of the Right have drawn their daggers against me?

Mr. D'Souza needs to find himself some new friends. Somebody, somewhere along the line needed to pull him aside and say that this book was publicly going to sting the right as much as, if not more than, the left. But unless D'Souza is being disingenuous with his surprise, nobody did. He's surrounded himself with yes men or a rather questionable ideological cocoon. Maybe what he said truly needed to be said, but he should not have been surprised at the reaction.

Conservatives have spent the last five years arguing against the proposition that 9/11 was provoked by our own behavior, specifically our support for Israel and our imperialist tendencies. Even if that argument is completely wrong, and I don't believe that it is, conservatives have a great deal invested in that argument and are not going to change their minds simply because we can say it was provoked by the our American opponents.

The best response I have read, to date, has come from Jonah Goldberg:

It needs to be said that the problem with D'Souza's case is one of emphasis. If one were to make a list of important reasons why the Muslim world or Islamists in particular want to kill us, just about every reasonable person would put the D'Souza thesis on the list, though partisans of particular schools might rank it higher or lower depending on their agendas. But very few would rank our alleged pagan depravity at the top of the list. And virtually no one, save D'Souza himself, would say that our pagan depravity is pretty much the entire list. [...]

There's something about The Enemy at Home that gets the Irish up, even in a guy named Goldberg. I can criticize and complain about my brother all I like, but if my brother bothers somebody outside the family, well, that's just too bad. Similarly, Ted Kennedy may or may not be a Caligulan carbuncle, but if the jihadists want to behead him for it, they'll have to get through me first. In short, if our debauchery fuels Islamic terrorists to kill us, the blame for that still resides entirely with the terrorists. One can wholeheartedly agree that some Americans make poor use of their freedom, and that certain behavior shouldn't be promoted, but that's our problem. And if it makes it harder for us to make our case to the Muslim world, then harder it must be.

Of the last eleven elected presidents, five had most recently been elected governor, four most recently elected vice president, one had never been previously elected to office, and exactly one a United States Senator. Historically, the American public is quite reluctant to turn the keys of the White House over to a US Senator. We much prefer governors and vice presidents.

But one of the peculiarities of the upcoming election is that nearly every credible candidate for president on both sides is either a current or former senator. The only two people really standing in the way of a senator-president are Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney and Democrat Al Gore. The only governors running are Democrat Bill Richardson and Republican Romney, and they're longshots (Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore are apprently making a go at it, but "longshot" seriously overstates their odds). At a time when frustration with Washington DC is at a peak, this is a most curious development.

My first thought is that after having buyers remorse by electing an inexperienced governor to the presidency six years ago perhaps people are just putting a premium on Washingtonian experience, but with the exception of John McCain none of them have been a senator very long. Edwards served for six years and quit, Clinton will have served eight, Obama will have served four, and Fred Thompson served eight and quit. Furthermore, Edwards, Thompson, and Clinton had never held elective office prior to their election as senator (though Clinton can obviously claim other relevent experience).

We know why the Vice President isn't running, but where are the governors? I guess that the governors were having something of a rough time of it back in the recession and so you didn't have any of them claiming as impressive records as a governor can during an economic boom. But mainly I'd guess it's the prevalence of foreign policy as an issue and governors don't have much experience in that area. But even then senators (except Obama) are having to explain away or justify their votes for an unpopular war, so what they've done so far in the foreign policy arena isn't entirely an asset. I think some of it comes down to is that with foreign policy so dominant, it's primarily the national lawmakers that have our attention and the bad publicity the senate has gotten has been balanced out by the fact that they're getting attention whereas governors like Mark Warner and Tom Vilsak never really did. And the other of it is just luck.

The only real downside is that every senator already believes that he's going to be president someday and this election (unless Gore gets in and kicks butt) will very much bolster that belief.

Geico - formerly know as the Government Employees Insurance Company - have had enormous success with their advertising recently, especially for car insurance.

The "Cavemen" ad spots have been amazingly brilliant in particular.

However, I was poking around the other day, just checking my insurance rate against a couple other companies, when I noticed a little checkbox in one of the applications: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a customer of GEICO?"

As it turns out, GEICO may save you 10%, but the other companies are likely as not to take it out on you for being a former customer of GEICO later... and whether GEICO can really save you 10% is questionable from the quotes I was getting.

"Your mileage may vary."

[Updated]: So that I'm a bit clearer: checking that little box actually did increase the price that the insurance companies' automated systems quoted me.

As anyone that's visited here in the past month or two has surely noticed, there has not been very much activity. Unfortunately, I don't have the time and energy to carry a blog on my own anymore. It becomes a cycle where I don't post and then the threshold for having a post being worthy of the first post in x-number of weeks raises, discouraging further posts. But I'm not quite ready to give up entirely yet as I do have things to say and ideas to present.

So I decided to shift RAW360 into a group exercise. If it works out, there may be a redesign or even a renaming in the works down the road. When I decided to give this route a try, two names immediately sprung to mind and to my delight both of them accepted my invitation to become a contributor. The first is Sammler of Stone City, a blog that has gone tragically unnoticed over the years. The second is a non-blogger named C.O. Jones that I am not at liberty to say anything about, so he'll become our resident man of mystery. Both of these men are very busy and neither will be able to contribute on a daily or even weekly basis, but between the two of them and Michael Ahlf and myself I hope to see a steady stream of posts.

I've already got at least one more name in mind for an invitation and will be on the lookout for others that that are interested in blogging but do not have the time and energy to run a blog of their own.

One other piece of news: You no longer have to register to leave comments! Even that onerous step stopped stopping the spammers, so I went back to the drawing board and added a new tool. Now, unless you're logged in you will be asked to answer a question. The questions are exceedingly easy, but if you don't know the answer to it you can refresh to get a new question or spend about two seconds looking it up on Google.

And lastly, a bit "thank you" to those that continue to stop by every now and again despite the lack of activity!

Changes are afoot!