Bill Clinton in 1992-96 was a set of very different circumstances. One, you had a popular Southern Governor at the top of the ticket, two, a three way race with two conservatives and a centrist, and three, states with incumbant Democratic senators involved. Ten years ago might as well be fifty in terms of the relevence.
I also don't believe the VP influences as much as people think. In Hillary's case, winning any of the Southern states is unlikely at best, no matter who's on the ticket, so why spend the capital in order to influence a percentage point or two where it doesn't help? Where as a midwestern candidate shifting a couple of percentage points there locks up areas like Wisconsin, Minnisota, and puts Iowa in play. A southwestern opens up New Mexico and Nevada. Most importantly, assuming the Democrats hold Kerry's wins from 2004 (and all of them are trending that way), all you need to do is flip Ohio and your candidate is President. Just looking through the South, where Bush won most by 10% or more, I don't see anyone short of Jesus Christ on the ticket impacting that.
no subject
I also don't believe the VP influences as much as people think. In Hillary's case, winning any of the Southern states is unlikely at best, no matter who's on the ticket, so why spend the capital in order to influence a percentage point or two where it doesn't help? Where as a midwestern candidate shifting a couple of percentage points there locks up areas like Wisconsin, Minnisota, and puts Iowa in play. A southwestern opens up New Mexico and Nevada. Most importantly, assuming the Democrats hold Kerry's wins from 2004 (and all of them are trending that way), all you need to do is flip Ohio and your candidate is President. Just looking through the South, where Bush won most by 10% or more, I don't see anyone short of Jesus Christ on the ticket impacting that.