Global stock markets have tumbled in a scare sparked by fears that the U.S. economy is heading for a recession. New data released at the end of last week suggests the American economy has significantly slowed and the days since have seen a "global rout" in stock markets that has fueled fears of a full-blown crash, said The Telegraph. With European markets opening "in the red" and the U.K.'s FTSE 100 index experiencing its "worst drop in more than a year," no market seems immune from the spiral. 

What did the commentators say? 
The global sell-off is thought to have "wiped trillions of dollars off of global markets," said the Daily Express. The effect appears most severe in Japan's Nikkei index. 

The drops can be attributed to the latest U.S. jobs report, which shows unemployment "rising to its highest level in years," said The New York Times. The figures stoked fears that the "economy was cooling," prompting a wave of "investor anxiety." 

Investors were already on the edge thanks to the Federal Reserve's "waiting game" on lowering its benchmark interest rate, said John Authers at Bloomberg. "To err is human," but the Fed might have held off "too long," creating an atmosphere of "hair-trigger reactions to every shred of news." 

What next? 
With a global sell-off now in full swing, the prospects of swift interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve at its next meeting on Sept. 17 "loom large," said Reuters. Though the FTSE 100 has also been caught up in the ongoing "global mayhem," it could be in with a chance of "skirting the absolute worst of the declines." Sectors within the index often offer a glut of "solid, predictable dividends," said Bloomberg, and investors may turn to the FTSE to ensure safety. 

But it will be a "moment of truth" for Japan's stock market, said Una Galan at Reuters. This week's "slump" is likely to finally reveal "how much substance is beneath the froth" in the country's economy. 

The global problems are unlikely to end soon. "We likely have a summer of volatility ahead of us," Chris Beauchamp, the chief market analyst at online trading platform IG, said to The Mirror. "Such moves don't stop in a single day."

A presidential nominee's choice of a running mate is one of the more high-profile decisions made before the general election. Political science research shows that these choices can have limited impact, but modern history is full of running mates who either helped the ticket across the finish line or turned out to be a drag on losing campaigns. 

The best picks compensate for a nominee's weaknesses
George H.W. Bush (1980): In 1980, former California Gov. Ronald Reagan took the unusual step of tapping his moderate rival for the nomination, former U.S. Rep. and CIA Director Bush, as his running mate. The soft-spoken Bush ultimately helped Reagan deliver one of the worst defeats of an incumbent in American history when they vanquished Democratic President Jimmy Carter in a landslide. 

Al Gore (1992): After 12 years of Republican control of the White House and three straight blowout presidential losses, Democrats were desperate to get their nominee right. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton gambled that a young ticket of self-styled ideological moderates would persuade the electorate to once again trust Democrats with the country's highest office. They were proven right when Clinton and Gore won a decisive election.

The worst picks compensate for the wrong problem
Joe Lieberman (2000): For Democrats, it's hard to think about Lieberman outside the political party flipping that followed his losing campaign with then-Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Gore chose Lieberman as a way of distancing himself from President Clinton's sordid personal history, but Gore's real problem was with the disenchanted progressive wing of his party. Enough people deserted Gore for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, which cost Gore the crucial swing state of Florida and, thus, the election. 

Sarah Palin (2008): Palin is the ultimate cautionary tale in running mate selection lore. Despite an electric debut at the Republican National Convention, Palin later gave a series of disastrous interviews that led to her enduring "Saturday Night Live" caricature as an intellectual lightweight. The "Palin effect" ultimately "cost GOP nominee John McCain almost 2% of the final vote share," according to a 2010 study.