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

[tpfkaw]

What it says in the title.  Did the VP pick for presidential campaigns in past years help them gain additional votes (this does not mean that there weren't better picks...), or did they actually lose the ticket votes?

I'd say:

2008: Palin and Biden were both drags on their tickets.
2004: Cheney hurt, Edwards helped.
2000: Cheney hurt, Lieberman helped.
1996: Both Kemp and Gore helped.
1992: Quayle hurt, Gore helped, Stockdale hurt.
1988: Quayle hurt, Bentsen helped (quite a bit).
1984: Bush helped, Ferraro probably hurt.
1980: Bush and Mondale probably both helped.
1976: Dole hurt, Mondale helped.
1972: Agnew hurt, Eagleton hurt a great deal, Shriver helped.
1968: Both Agnew and Muskie helped, LeMay hurt (a lot).
1964: Miller and Humphrey probably both helped.
1960: Lodge and Johnson both helped.
1956: Nixon and Kefauver both helped.
1952: Nixon helped, Sparkman probably hurt.
1948: Warren and Barkley both helped.

[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).

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

'08 - Palin -, Biden mild +
'04 - Cheney mild -, Edwards mild +
'00 - Cheney mild +, Lieberman mixed (helped in Fla., probably hurt elsewhere)
'96 - Gore mild +, Kemp neither
'92 - Gore big +, Quayle -, Stockdale very mild - (would've hurt more if Perot had a chance of winning)
'88 - Bentson +, Quayle -
'84 - Bush neither, Ferraro mixed
'80 - Bush & Mondale both +, where's Pat Lucey? (Anderson's running mate)
'76 - Mondale +, Dole - (probably helped in some farm states though)
'72 - Agnew mixed, Eagleton major -, Shriver mild +
'68 - Muskie +, Agnew -, LeMay -, I suppose
'64 - Humphrey +, Miller neither
'60 - Johnson big +, Lodge neither (that I can see)
'56 - Nixon mild +, Kefauver not sure
52 - Nixon mixed to +, Sparkman not sure
48 - Barkley +, Warren neither

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

[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.

[tpfkaw]

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

Sorry, meant to say Sparkman (Kefauver would've been a much better choice).

where's Pat Lucey? (Anderson's running mate)

Only included tickets that got over 10% of the popular vote.

[sg0508]

I don't agree that Mondale helped much in 1976.  I don't think he was even Carter's first choice.

Dole may have been the reason Ford lost.  He was forced into the Dole pick to put a conservative on the ticket due to the brutal primary with Reagan.  Nelson Rockefeller however may have made the difference in NY, PA and OH, where the Republicans ultimately lost the race.

[Lupo]

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

[Username MechaRFK]

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

He wasn't a negative either. Palin hurt McCain big time.

[Stranger in a strange land]

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

He provided racial and age balance to the ticket. He also lent foreign policy expertise, as well as intimate knowledge of how things are done on the hill, both of which Obama has benefited from in the White House.

Palin, by contrast, was an utter disaster for the McCain ticket, and the damage has continued to be felt ever since.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2008: Not a fan of Biden anyone but Biden
2004: Dick Gephardt was my choice
2000: Bob Graham would have cemented Florida for Gore

[hcallega]

2008: Palin helped solidify/turn-out conservative base. Hurt among moderates and independents. Biden helped defuse inexperience argument. More of a choice aimed at governing, less campaigning.

2004: Cheney did exactly what he was meant to do: be a bulldog and foil to the generally optimistic Bush. Edwards was intended to provide charisma to the ticket, failed to make an impact.

2000: See above for Cheney. Lieberman helped among the Jewish vote, but didn't campaign enough to make a serious impact. Also let Cheney walk all over him in the debates.

[J. J.]

2008: Palin hurt, and Biden helped in PA and NJ.
2004: Cheney neutral, Edwards hurt, came off as slick.
2000: Cheney hurt, as he looked recycled, Lieberman helped a great deal in FL.
1996: Kemp neutral and Gore neutral.
1992: Quayle hurt, Gore helped, Stockdale hurt.
1988: Quayle hurt, Bentsen helped a lot.
1984: Bush helped, Ferraro a disaster.
1980: Bush helped a lot and Mondale neutral.
1976: Dole hurt, Mondale helped.
1972: Agnew helped, Eagleton was the greatest disaster.
1968: Agnew helped and Muskie hurt, LeMay hurt a lot.
1964: Miller and Humphrey both helped.
1960: Lodge hurt and Johnson helped.
1956: Nixon neutral and Kefauver helped.
1952: Nixon hurt, because he came off as slick, Sparkman neutral.
1948: Warren and Barkley both helped.

[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?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

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.

[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

[Niemeyerite]

Obama was going to win anyways. He chose the best VP, not the VP candidate who would deliver him more EVs (he would have chosen Sebelius, Bayh or McCaskill if he wanted a 400+EVs win)

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

[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?

[J. J.]

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.

Agnew did the nearly impossible in 1968.  He appealed to southerners and Rockefeller Republicans (he was Nelson's suggestion).

Muskie didn't add anything.  It was two extreme liberals and there was no real geographic base.  A candidate from the west, south (which would have been difficult), or even the midwest would have been better.

[Username MechaRFK]

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.

Agnew did the nearly impossible in 1968.  He appealed to southerners and Rockefeller Republicans (he was Nelson's suggestion).

Muskie didn't add anything.  It was two extreme liberals and there was no real geographic base.  A candidate from the west, south (which would have been difficult), or even the midwest would have been better.

Ed Muskie and Hubert Humphrey were not extreme liberals. In your dreamy  world, sure.  In the real world, they are normal liberals.

[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.