First came product placement. In exchange for a payment, whether in cash, supplies or services, a TV show or a film would prominently display a brand-name product.
Then there was virtual product placement. Products or logos would be inserted into a show during editing, thanks to computer-generated imagery.
Now, with the rise of Netflix and other streaming platforms, the practice of working brands into shows and films is likely to get more sophisticated. In the near future, according to marketing executives who have had discussions with streaming companies, the products that appear onscreen may depend on who is watching.
Who might the four leading Democratic candidates (Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, Warren), choose as their running mate if they were to get the nomination? Who should they pick to maximize their chances?
As Presidents delegate more real responsibilities to their Veeps, a presidential candidate’s choices are increasingly a matter of personal chemistry. The candidates also consider expertise, such as foreign policy or legislative experience. Sometimes, candidates even consider who could safely run the country. (But see Palin and Pence.) As a result, these choices are increasingly difficult for outsiders to predict. Nonetheless, it’s a fun parlor game. Remember, this isn’t about who you want, but who you think best fits the electoral calculations.
Let’s start with some basic political considerations:
It helps if a Veep can pull in a swing state. Indeed, that used to be pretty much all Vice Presidents were thought to be good for. Trouble is, in these polarized times there are increasingly few politicians who are true favorite sons or daughters with that kind of pull beyond what the presidential nominee brings to the ticket. So this consideration has faded if only because almost no one satisfies it. Al Gore couldn’t even carry Tennessee for Bill Clinton. This consideration still weighs against picking a Veep from a safely Democratic state such as California, like Senator Kamala Harris.
Geographic diversity matters. Even if there isn’t someone who could be counted on to deliver Wisconsin, Ohio, or Florida, or maybe even Arizona, geographic diversity has value. In particular, a Democratic ticket with two northeasterners would likely face a disadvantage. If Sanders or Warren or even Biden is the nominee, they’ll want to look well beyond their neighboring states.
Other forms of diversity also matter. It helps if a Veep can appeal to a demographic or ideological group where the candidate is perceived to be weak. Modern history offers lots of examples: Pence (evangelicals); Biden (white “regular guys”); Reagan’s choice of the first Bush (moderate Republicans – back when they were numerous enough to matter); Mondale (the so-called liberal wing that suspected Carter). Occasionally, Veeps are presented as providing a skill set (e.g. Biden’s foreign policy experience, Cheney’s supposed gravitas) that the candidate is seen to lack.
Another modern consideration is whether the electorate can see the Veep nominee as a potential President. Sarah Palin’s candidacy is an object lesson in the costs to the campaign if the Veep fails that test. A similar issue is whether the Veep nominee has ever been exposed to the unique rigors and scrutiny of a national campaign. Palin is also a lesson in the risks of picking someone who hasn’t. Sen. Thomas Eagleton notoriously had escaped scrutiny of a his history of ECT therapy, and when that came out days after his being named by George McGovern, Eagleton got dropped from the ticket; the incident torpedoed whatever small chance McGovern had of being elected.
An additional consideration applies only if the candidate is thinking of picking a sitting Senator as a running mate: Who will appoint the Senator’s replacement if s/he gets elected Vice President? If Democrats have any hope of getting to even a tied Senate, the last thing they want to do is give up a sitting Senator’s seat. Here’s a list of the leading Senatorial presidential candidates, and their home-state governors:
There’s a petition campaign being conducted by Make it Legal Florida to amend the Florida state Constitution to make possession and use of small quantities of marijuana legal under Florida law.
I strongly support this change: the war on pot has criminalized too many people, disproportionately poor. The pot war also creates contempt for the law among an ever-larger population, one that thinks the ban is ridiculous and which thinks nothing of flouting the marijuana laws routinely. Also pernicious is the excuse, real or feigned, of ‘smelling marijuana’ that has justified a large number of law enforcement searches that would otherwise be illegal and, in poorer areas, would otherwise be seen as the discriminatory and coercive actions they are. (Wait until we have driverless cars and the ‘erratic lane change’ and ‘failure to signal’ excuses go out the window….)
While pot use may not be totally safe, and has little appeal for me, it doesn’t seem as dangerous or addictive as alcohol, which is legal for adults, nor for that matter (as far as we know) tobacco, which is still legal for the moment. Bans on pot, and arguably other drugs also, not only motivate and finance organized crime, they divert police resources from more important public safety issues. The large profits available in the illicit drug trade is a major source of potential corruption in law enforcement — although to be fair this is likely more true of harder drugs where the public health consequences of legalization would be more fraught.
Normally, you would expect this sort of change by legislation. But Florida is a 50/50 state which has a large gerrymandered Republican majority in the legislature. As a result, state constitutional amendments are often the only way to get progressive proposals adopted, even when they have as wide popular support as this one. Thus, in Florida purism about what does and doesn’t belong in a Constitution needs to be relaxed considerably from the ideal.
Crassly, putting a pot amendment on the 2020 ballot should also motivate increased turnout from younger voters, something which is usually good for progressive candidates. So that’s another reason for registered Florida voters (only) to download, sign, and mail the petition.
The petition contains a summary, reflecting what would be on the ballot. The full text of the amendment is also online.
While all eyes are focused on Russian interference in US elections (or, in the case of reality deniers, on imagined Ukrainian interference), a force planning to intervene in our domestic affairs is marshaling on our southern border.
Heard from my office – no idea who the speakers were.
