While we wait for returns in Mississippi and Michigan, it’s worth taking a peek at how 2016’s Democratic primary results compare so far to 2008. For electoral analysts, we’re lucky this year in that one of the two candidates is the same as in 2008, and that in both years the race was essentially a two-person contest (after Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, at least).

The graph above shows where Hillary Clinton is doing better this year (bubbles above the diagonal line) or worse (below). The area of each circle is proportional to the number of 2016 delegates.

By far the worst—but most predictable—tumble for Clinton came in Vermont. What was a 20-point blowout in 2008 turned into a complete route when up against the home state favorite, Bernie Sanders. Clinton has also underperformed in the other New England states that have voted so far, shown in green. Note, though, that New Hampshire was a competitive three-way race in 2008, which makes direct comparisons trickier.

Where Clinton has overperformed dramatically compared to 2008 is in the South, depicted in blue. Exit polls show that these results are a combination of her phenomenal strength with minorities—she’s won between 83 to 91 percent of black voters, and 71 precent of the Latino vote in Texas—and her ability to win majorities of white voters. That’s resulted in even bigger margins for Clinton in Southern primaries than President Obama earned in 2008.

What about the caucus states that Sanders is winning by huge margins?