Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in simulating human language use and behavior. In this study, we delve into the intersection of persona variables and the capability of LLMs to simulate different perspectives. We find that persona variables can explain <10\% variance in annotations in existing subjective NLP datasets. Nonetheless, incorporating them via prompting in LLMs provides modest improvement. Persona prompting is most effective on data samples where disagreements among annotators are frequent yet confined to a limited range. A linear correlation exists: the more persona variables influence human annotations, the better LLMs predictions are using persona prompting. However, when the utility of persona variables is low (i.e., explaining <10\% of human annotations), persona prompting has little effect. Most subjective NLP datasets fall into this category, casting doubt on simulating diverse perspectives in the current NLP landscape.