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

[RogueBeaver]

1948: Barkley helped, Warren was useless.
1952: Nixon helped for ideological, political and age balance. Sparkman was useless.
1956: See above, replace "Sparkman" with"Cowfever."
1960: Lodge was useless, LBJ's Southern coattails gave victory to JFK.
1964: HHH was effective as a barnburner and for regional balance. Miller was useless by Goldwater's own admission.
1968: Muskie was helpful, Agnew a drag.
1972: Eagleton was the worst VP disaster in modern times, even worse than Palin. Agnew was as useless as 4 years earlier, but irrelevant.
1976: Both were useful in terms of ideological and regional balance. In Ford's case, age balance as well.
1980: Bush was very useful, Mondale neutral.
1984: Bush useful again, Ferraro not so much.
1988: Bentsen overshadowed Dukakis, Quayle was a lightweight gaffe machine.
1992: Gore complemented Clinton, Quayle a disaster.
1996: Dual-neutral.
2000: Cheney helped Bush by providing ballast and DC experience, plus being the attack dog. Lieberman neutral- he helped retain centrists irked by Gore's conversion to populism but hurt with liberals. No net change.
2004: See above for Cheney. Edwards was to provide charisma and regional balance, but did neither.
2008: Biden was useful to Obama, Palin the worst disaster since Eagleton.