If the Winner of Each Primary's Popular Vote was the Nominee

[RI]

Let's say that instead of being controlled by party insiders, the presidential nominating process was decided by the winner of the popular vote of all the primaries. Here are the elections that would have been different:

1912: Woodrow Wilson (D-NJ) vs. Theodore Roosevelt (R-NY)
1916: Woodrow Wilson (D-NJ) vs. Martin Brumbaugh (R-PA)
1920: Alexander Mitchell Palmer (D-PA) vs. Hiram Johnson (R-CA)
1924: William McAdoo (D-CA) vs. Calvin Coolidge (R-MA)
1932: Franklin Roosevelt (D-NY) vs. Joseph France (R-MD)
1936: Franklin Roosevelt (D-NY) vs. William Borah (R-ID)
1940: Franklin Roosevelt (D-NY) vs. Thomas Dewey (R-NY)
1944: Franklin Roosevelt (D-NY) vs. Douglas MacArthur (R-AR)
1948: Harry Truman (D-MO) vs. Earl Warren (R-CA)
1952: Estes Kefauver (D-TN) vs. Robert Taft (R-OH)
1968: Eugene McCarthy (D-MN) vs. Ronald Reagan (R-CA)
1972: Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) vs. Richard Nixon (R-CA)*
2008: Hillary Clinton (D-NY) vs. John McCain (R-AZ)*

*Does not include caucuses as explained below.

How would any of these races have turned out? Pick any VPs, any necessary third party candidates, and assume that these elections are in isolation from one another.

[aaaa2222]

Obama won the popular vote in 2008 in the primaries.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

For 1952.

Might be a bit off, i'm a tad drunk right now, ill edit my post for some more later.

1972

[RI]

Obama won the popular vote in 2008 in the primaries.

Only if you include caucuses. For historical continuity purposes, I am not doing so.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Obama won the popular vote in 2008 in the primaries.

Only if you include caucuses. For historical continuity purposes, I am not doing so.

Caucuses are flawed anyways. Look at Texas. Obama won the caucus, yet the voices of the people [the primary] gave Hillary a clear victory.

[HappyWarrior]

Obama won the popular vote in 2008 in the primaries.

Only if you include caucuses. For historical continuity purposes, I am not doing so.

So you are just throwing out those people's votes

[RI]

Obama won the popular vote in 2008 in the primaries.

Only if you include caucuses. For historical continuity purposes, I am not doing so.

So you are just throwing out those people's votes

The problem with caucuses is one of recording, not of legitimacy. Caucuses, being run by individual parties, place little value on historical preservation of data. Because of this, data for many caucuses throughout history is completely unobtainable. This means that the true primary plus caucus vote total for various years, especially further back in the past, is unknowable. In order to be fair, I disregarded all caucuses. If you include caucuses, you could throw out 2008 and possibly 1972, but the simple fact is that we just can't know for certain even which states held caucuses in which years. I've run into this problem perpetually in my primary data project.

It matters not to me if you want to include 2008, the question still remains open for all the other contests.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Caucuses throw out people's votes, you twerp.

Look at Texas in 2008.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why do parties continue to get away with having such non-democratic 'caucuses' any way?

All it basically does is to allow the party establishment to still decide the nominee in those old smoke-filled rooms, while giving off the illusion of democracy for the masses.

[Mr. Morden]

Even if you ignore caucuses, doesn't Clinton only win the 2008 popular vote if you include the rogue primaries in Florida and Michigan?

[RI]

Look, I am asking about twelve races besides 2008 as well.

Historically, there is no such thing as a rogue primary. Delegateless races or uncontested races have always been included in the popular vote total of past primaries. For political purposes, sure, you could make that argument, but this is not the discussion I would rather have.

Is anyone going to actually make maps in this thread?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Even if you ignore caucuses, doesn't Clinton only win the 2008 popular vote if you include the rogue primaries in Florida and Michigan?

Rogue primaries? They were legitimate elections with legitimate ballots open to any voter who was eligible to vote for the primary.

[HappyWarrior]

Even if you ignore caucuses, doesn't Clinton only win the 2008 popular vote if you include the rogue primaries in Florida and Michigan?

Rogue primaries? They were legitimate elections with legitimate ballots open to any voter who was eligible to vote for the primary.

Other than the fact that they broke the laws of the parties.

[Lahbas]

1912

Despite his popularity, many Taft conservatives might likely have found themselves voting for Wilson rather than the Progressive Roosevelt in this election.
1920

No hope for Palmer after his little raids. Actually, despite the Progressiveness of Johnson, would likely translate into a larger win for the Republicans.

[Lahbas]

1924

Was not a Democratic year. La Follete manages to upset McAdoo in a great many states largely due to his appeal to liberal Democrats, while Coolidge, even though he doesn't campaign, is popular in himself.
1932

Not much difference. The Republicans in general were being blamed for the Depression at this point, and even though France might have picked up a few additional votes, I would not be nearly enough.