The effect of the VP

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

...is really overrated on this site. At least in terms of "delivering" states or increasing the appeal of a ticket to a certain part of the country. This especially is evident in the supposed belief of a "neighboring state" advantage or the belief that if a VP candidate could play well in a certain state they'd add a boost at the bottom of the ticket.

Go look at the 1988 map. Who was the better VP then? People don't vote for the VP. If they did Dukakis wouldn't lose Texas by well over double digits with the most popular guy in the state as his running mate. If they can't stand the person at the top of the ticket, they won't vote for that ticket if Jesus Christ was running at the bottom. At the best the effect would be increasing turnout (for example Obama could boost black turnout on either side of the ticket) or if they have a strong political machine in their home state it could give a big benefit (like LBJ). But no one will get a massive boost even in their VP's home state just due to having him on the ticket. I bet it's probably a point at most unless one of the two above situations apply. For example, the claim by some people that Huckabee would help a ticket in the Midwest, based on the assumption Huckabee is a good candidate for the Midwest (I have a tough time seeing how a fundamentalist Southern Baptist preacher advocating a regressive national sales tax is a good candidate for this region, but that's beside the point). It doesn't matter. Midwesterners will not vote for a guy they hate just because his running mate is some guy they had never heard of before the election that they like slightly more, assuming the actually bother to research his positions and record which few will. Similarly, no one cares about someone from a neighboring state just because they're a neighboring state. Most people can only name the politicians from their home state at best. People in Ohio don't care about Evan Bayh anymore than people in California care about John Kyl.

A good VP is someone with charisma and campaign skill, can debate well, and overall present the ticket in a positive manner. That matters a lot more than the extremely overrated ability to "deliver" a state.

[Joe Republic]

Agreed.  Take a look at the election results in North Carolina in 2000 and 2004.  John Edwards's impact was truly negligible.

Meanwhile, in 1988, Dan Quayle actually succeeded in reducing the Republican share in Indiana by 2 points from four years previously.

[Mr. Morden]

More than that, it's clear that the presidential nominees themselves don't choose VPs on the basis of home state, as evidenced by the fact that the last four major party VP nominees came from NY, CT, WY, and NC.  These are hardly swing states.  Yet people here constantly dismiss certain potential VP candidates because "they wouldn't deliver their home state".  That doesn't matter.  The presidential nominees, that is, the people who actually make this decision, don't seem to care about that these days.

[Hatman 🍁]

Bill Richardson would in all likelyhood deliver New Mexico, you have to admit that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Bill Richardson would in all likelyhood deliver New Mexico, you have to admit that.

Probably, but it's such a marginal state in the first place, and he has a strong political machine, there (see the first point)

This is one of the few exceptions, but the original point is true almost all the time.

[Joe Republic]

Bill Richardson would in all likelyhood deliver New Mexico, you have to admit that.

Sure, if one of the other mainstream candidates was at the top of the ticket.  But where do you draw the line?  Would Richardson still carry NM if the presidential nominee was, say, Kucinich?