It depends on a lot of factors.
First, name recognition is a plus. Obviously, governors and senators tend to have state-wide name recognition.
Second, a positive reputation is also a plus. There are always some governors who are less than popular in their own state.
Third, how many electoral votes does a state have. The Governor of Ohio brings more electoral votes than the Governor of Virginia who brings more electoral votes than the Governor of New Hampshire though all three are swing states with Democratic Governor.
Fourth, what are the Presidential candidates strengths and weaknesses. In this last cycle, the Democratic nominee was seen as more of a domestic candidate with experience in state issues. That dictated picking a Vice-President with more national and international experience. On the other hand, the Republican candidate was seen as strong on foreign policy so he need a running mate who could emphasize domestic issues.
Fifth, what factions in the party need to be massaged. Neither party is a monolith and there are always factions that are less enthusiastic about the presidential nominee. The pick of the running mate can be used to ease some of these ill feelings.
Finally, there is the personal relationship thing between the two candidates. They don't have to be best buds, but they do have to get along well enough. When the presidential candidate is forced to take someone to satisfy the other five concerns, the wheels tend to come off during the campaign.
In short, a Governor of a swing state has a slight edge but is not a "must pick." In the particular case of Ted Strickland, a first term governor brings less to the table than a second term governor so I don't think that he could have demanded the pick.
First, name recognition is a plus. Obviously, governors and senators tend to have state-wide name recognition.
Second, a positive reputation is also a plus. There are always some governors who are less than popular in their own state.
Third, how many electoral votes does a state have. The Governor of Ohio brings more electoral votes than the Governor of Virginia who brings more electoral votes than the Governor of New Hampshire though all three are swing states with Democratic Governor.
Fourth, what are the Presidential candidates strengths and weaknesses. In this last cycle, the Democratic nominee was seen as more of a domestic candidate with experience in state issues. That dictated picking a Vice-President with more national and international experience. On the other hand, the Republican candidate was seen as strong on foreign policy so he need a running mate who could emphasize domestic issues.
Fifth, what factions in the party need to be massaged. Neither party is a monolith and there are always factions that are less enthusiastic about the presidential nominee. The pick of the running mate can be used to ease some of these ill feelings.
Finally, there is the personal relationship thing between the two candidates. They don't have to be best buds, but they do have to get along well enough. When the presidential candidate is forced to take someone to satisfy the other five concerns, the wheels tend to come off during the campaign.
In short, a Governor of a swing state has a slight edge but is not a "must pick." In the particular case of Ted Strickland, a first term governor brings less to the table than a second term governor so I don't think that he could have demanded the pick.