Mike Glyer notes, in a detailed comparison table, that the 64 of the Rabid Puppies' 81 slated items (works or people) made it onto this year's Hugo ballot. There are only 21 items on the ballot that are not on the Rabid Puppies' list.
However, Glyer doesn't note that of those 21, over half are on the Sad Puppies' list. If I'm counting right, there are only 9 works and people on the ballot that were neither on the RP nor the SP list, and 5 of those 9 are editors. So this ballot is largely determined (75%) by what's on the RP list, and overwhelmingly determined (89%) by what's on the combination of the RP and SP lists.
On the plus side, both RP and SP lists included a great deal more political diversity this year than has been true in the past. There are several works and people who probably would have been on the ballot even if they hadn't been listed by RP or SP, and there are several that I'll be happy to vote for. On the minus side, this still means that Vox Day is deciding most of what goes on the ballot; any time he decides he wants to fill a category with repulsive hatemongering, he can do that. (As it looks like he probably did this year in a couple of categories, though I'm not familiar with all the nominees.)
My only conclusion right now is that the E. Pluribus Hugo system (which aims to reduce the impact of slates), complicated though it appears, is probably our only chance to avoid the ballot being mostly determined by Vox Day for the foreseeable future. I'll be interested to hear from the EPH proposers whether they think that their system will work well in a case like this.