Upvote:12
Yes and no. I'd say mostly no.
One thing you should realize on questions about primaries is that the primary system itself is very new. Up until about the 1970's, state primaries and caucuses were optional side-shows, used to "market test" candidates. The actual decisions were made at nominating conventions by delegates who were largely officially unpledged (what we today call "Superdelegates"). The embarrassing chaos at the 1968 Democratic Convention caused a movement away from unpledged ("super") delegates toward primary/caucus - elected pledged delegates, but its been a very slow movement which continues to this day. That means the 1970's primaries may be technically comparable to modern ones (which pre-1972 ones were not), but in reality it has been a slow transition, not a switch-flip.
The point being there really isn't a coherent history with our modern primary system, and what little we do have isn't very old. There have only been 11 cycles that even remotely qualify as being under the modern system, and for most of that period superdelegates still had (collectively for what that's worth) more power than any one state's elected delegation.
That's all just a theory though, as superdelegates are generally elected officials of that party in that state. As such, they are political animals, and have a tendency to vote with their state (often going so far as to reverse endors*m*nts when their state voted a different way).
The other reason this is "just theory" is that this system largely exists to prevent messy contested conventions, like happened in 1968. There have been only 4 cycles since then where a convention was held without a mathematically and/or procedurally secure nominee, and they all happened before 1988.
That doesn't mean territorial primaries are pointless though. Puerto Rico actually has a larger Democratic convention delegation (and thus more voting power) than 22 US states including my own, and such famous primary stalwarts as Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. They have more delegates than South Dakota and Montana combined.