Given South Dakota...

[Gustaf]

...if there had been no caucuses, would Clinton have done significantly better in some of those states? Or was SD just a really, really weird fluke?

[Josh/Devilman88]

I think Obama would still have won the states he did, just by smaller margins.

[Franzl]

It's also a question of when the contests were held, who visited the state, who bought commercials, etc.

Obama did spend some time campaigning in ND, NE and other caucus states.

Also, I'm not really sure how much that really matters, but many people seem to think that South Dakota was also exhibiting their rejection of establishment (meaning Obama as the presumptive nominee, perhaps).

So, I don't think that Clinton would have won any of the caucus states, assuming, of course, that the campaign strategy is similar to the way it actually was. I do think she could have lowered the margin somewhat, and that would have kept from getting raped in the delegate count.

[WalterMitty]

if anything this smashes the theory that obama is going to do super duper well in the plains.

he couldnt win a f'ing primary there on a night he clinched the nomination.

[War on Want]

if anything this smashes the theory that obama is going to do super duper well in the plains.

he couldnt win a f'ing primary there on a night he clinched the nomination.

South Dakota is anti-establishment and Clinton went there constantly while Obama didn't. If anything the state likes both candidates now.

[Democratic Hawk]

if anything this smashes the theory that obama is going to do super duper well in the plains.

he couldnt win a f'ing primary there on a night he clinched the nomination.

Closed primary Mitty. Granted 15% styled themselves Independent and split evenly between the two

As to whether he's going to do super duper well in the plains I couldn't say - but McCain has to be the favorite in ND, SD, NE and KS

Dave

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think SD proves that caucuses are very undemocratic when it comes to choosing candidates. While Hillary may not have won any additional states, she would not have been absolutely creamed in them like she was. Look at Nebraska .. she lost by 3% in the primary and lost by 35% in the caucus. Anyone who still believes caucuses are accurate representations of state's wishes should be shot, execution style.

[Franzl]

should be shot, execution style.

You are a true republican.

[Sam Spade]

...if there had been no caucuses, would Clinton have done significantly better in some of those states? Or was SD just a really, really weird fluke?

Of course she would have.  Would have won North Dakota too, I suspect.

[kevinatcausa]

There's another effect that probably also is worth exploring here.  Why did Obama do so much worse in South Dakota then Montana across almost all demographics?   The states may be somewhat different, but not really enough to explain a 25 point difference in the margins. 

One possible explanation is that Clinton spent almost all of her time before the election campaigning in South Dakota and ignoring Montana, while Obama effectively ignored both states in order to push the image that he was already done with the primaries.   If voters in a state think only one candidate cares about their vote, that candidate will do exceptionally well in the state. 

Note that for the caucus states, the situation was reversed.  Obama was the only candidate who bothered to organize any sort of campaign in places like Idaho and Kansas.  Although his margin was inflated somewhat by the caucus format, it was also inflated by Clinton's disastrous decision to ignore those states entirely.  In the later "beauty" primaries, neither candidate really bothered to put an organization in place, so this effect also disappeared. 

[Gustaf]

There's another effect that probably also is worth exploring here.  Why did Obama do so much worse in South Dakota then Montana across almost all demographics?   The states may be somewhat different, but not really enough to explain a 25 point difference in the margins. 

One possible explanation is that Clinton spent almost all of her time before the election campaigning in South Dakota and ignoring Montana, while Obama effectively ignored both states in order to push the image that he was already done with the primaries.   If voters in a state think only one candidate cares about their vote, that candidate will do exceptionally well in the state. 

Note that for the caucus states, the situation was reversed.  Obama was the only candidate who bothered to organize any sort of campaign in places like Idaho and Kansas.  Although his margin was inflated somewhat by the caucus format, it was also inflated by Clinton's disastrous decision to ignore those states entirely.  In the later "beauty" primaries, neither candidate really bothered to put an organization in place, so this effect also disappeared. 

Fair point, but is it as universally true as Obama's performance in the caucus states? I'm pretty sure Clinton didn't ignore all of them and some of the margins are quite unbelievable, especially when compared to neighbouring states.

[kevinatcausa]

If I had to estimate the Caucus/Primary swing, my best guess would be to take the results from Texas, which had a 16 point difference in margin between the primaries and caucuses held on the same day that both counted for delegates.  I took a look at what would happen if we took the same swing in every caucus state (including dropping the Texas caucus and counting the primary as 100% of the delegates). 

Obama would still have won every caucus state he won but Iowa, but Maine would have been a close race and North Dakota would be by single digit margins.  If we also assume a 16% delegate swing in the caucus-only states, Obama's margin in pledged delegates would be reduced by 79, leading to a margin of about 45 pledged delegates for Obama (less once you drop the delegates who switched from Edwards to Obama, but I believe still positive even then).   

[Nym90]

Percentage wise and thus delegate wise, yes, she certainly would've done better. And I'm with Wally in saying that caucuses suck as a way to choose a candidate.

On the other hand, Obama's popular vote margins probably would've been greater than they were, overall, with the higher turnout.

[WalterMitty]

if anything this smashes the theory that obama is going to do super duper well in the plains.

he couldnt win a f'ing primary there on a night he clinched the nomination.

Closed primary Mitty. Granted 15% styled themselves Independent and split evenly between the two

As to whether he's going to do super duper well in the plains I couldn't say - but McCain has to be the favorite in ND, SD, NE and KS

Dave

perhaps obama would have done slightly better in the sd if bitter republicans who are upset that their party cant beat a clinton would have voted for him

but he still would have lost, most likely.

[Eraserhead]

I think Obama would still have won the states he did, just by smaller margins.

Probably true for the vast majority of them. Maybe Clinton would have won North Dakota though, I'm not really sure.