But the counterargument is a common one — that Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) much-criticized selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in 2008 indicates that a vice presidential pick actually matters and can do harm. But there’s a problem with that argument — there’s simply no empirical evidence that Palin hurt McCain.
Directly before picking her, a USA Today/Gallup poll showed McCain trailing then-Sen. Barack Obama by 7 points. After picking her, McCain jumped to a 4-point lead — his biggest since January of that year — and it’s often noted that McCain only began to bleed badly after the fall financial crisis.
Those who suggest that a vice president can help in this modern era generally point to the 1992 and 2000 elections, and at last, there’s some empirical proof to back up the claim that a vice presidential candidate can matter.
In 1992, Bill Clinton tapped Tennessee Sen. Al Gore as his running mate. Gore and Clinton shared youth, geographic roots and a centrist Democratic ideology, and Gore helped reinforce Clinton’s message of change at a time when the electorate was pining for a shift in course.
Clinton ultimately won the election, and Gore was credited with playing a significant role in that victory. In fact, CNN’s polling director, Keating Holland, estimates that Gore gave Clinton up to an 11-point bounce after he joined the ticket in July 1992. Clinton opened up a lead in what had been a very tight race and never trailed again.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/christian-heinze/242653-whom-to-pick-do-vice-presidents-even-matter
= new reply since forum marked as read
