Were past VP choices net positives or net negatives for the ticket?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

John Sparkman was Stevenson's running-mate in 1952, not Kefauver.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Anyway:

1948: Warren didn't really bring much to the ticket, since he and Dewey were a representing the very same liberal GOP wing. Didn't help much geographically either, since Truman performed surprisingly well in the West.

Barkley certainly helped Truman with party machine, weakened by Dixiecrat and Wallace's rebellions.

1952: Nixon was a great balance factor to Eisenhower: young, militant, more experienced. Yet Eisenhower simply could not lose in 1952 and one can speculate whether he lost some votes or gained some thanks to Nixon presence.

Sparkman wasn't a big factor, since the Deep South was going to Stevenson no matter what. He might actually hurt him among Northern liberal Democrats, holding a civil issue dear (although during his first Senate years, Sparkman was among the most liberal, on everything except of the civil rights, Southern Democrats, along with his patron, Lister Hill).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1960: Johnson was a big positive while Lodge brought nothing to Nixon.
1964: Humphrey was a helper while Miller was really too unknown to be either.
1968: Muskie was a big helper. Agnew probably hurt. LeMay also hurt.
1972: Agnew would still be a negative as was Shriver, though it was hardly his fault.
1976: Mondale helped and Dole hurt.
1980: Bush and Mondale helped. Lucey was a drag on Anderson.
1984: Bush helped and Ferraro hurt.
1988: Quayle hurt and Bentsen was probably a huge helper.
1992: Gore helped while Quayle and Stockdale both hurt a lot.
1996: Gore and Kemp both helped.
2000: Lieberman and Cheney both hurt, in my view.
2004: Cheney hurt and Edwards eventually hurt.
2008: Biden may have helped a little bit while Palin hurt the ticket a lot.

I generally agree except of 1988 and 2000.

In 2000 Cheney was perceived as a highly experienced and highly regarded veteran and helped Bush.

In 1988 Bentsen appeared way more presidential than Dukakis, hurting his partner by kind of overshadowing him.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't see how anyone can say Joe Biden was a positive.

You know, Richard Nixon said that VP candidate can't really help the presidential candidate, so main objective is to select a harmless one. It's not always, true, IMO (see LBJ in 1960, who delivered Texas to JFK), but applicable too.

Biden certainly did not hurt Obama. In fact, he provided some help among blue collar voters and, for sure, added foreign policy experience.

2008: Not a fan of Biden anyone but Biden

Even the runner-up, a great Democrat Evan Bayh?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't see how anyone can say Joe Biden was a positive.

You know, Richard Nixon said that VP candidate can't really help the presidential candidate, so main objective is to select a harmless one. It's not always, true, IMO (see LBJ in 1960, who stole Texas for JFK), but applicable too.

Biden certainly did not hurt Obama. In fact, he provided some help among blue collar voters and, for sure, added foreign policy experience.

Fixed.

Won, stole... you can't deny he helped JFK in each situation

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1968: Agnew helped and Muskie hurt, LeMay hurt a lot.

This is backwards. Muskie greatly helped Humphrey's campaign and even would allow protestors to take the podium to air their views. Historians agree that the choice of Muskie was a good one. Agnew was a drag on Nixon. Not just politically, but Agnew was a gaffe machine and made Nixon look bad, especially in 1968 when the Democratic ads tore at Agnew's image.

Muskie delivered him home state to Humphrey and Maine, back then, voted solidly Republican in presidential elections. Yet, 1968 was a comfortable victory for the Democrats.

Not enough to swing an election, but if it isn't help, then what the hell is?