I just want to underscore Elliott's point about how hard polling has gotten with a quick story I wrote up in a paper with Tori Gorton called "On the Internet, No One Knows You're An Activist." We were trying to survey lower-engagement voters, so we drew a sample of 9,937 registered Pennsylvania voters who hadn't consistently voted 2012-2018. Then, we matched them to Facebook accounts and served ads to 1,321 inviting them to take a survey. 66 people clicked on our ad, 7 began the survey, 6 completed it, and 1 person left an email for follow-up. I of course want to express my deep gratitude to that one respondent. But beyond that, a 0.4% response rate magnifies sampling errors, because very small differences in people's willingness to take polls can add up to very large errors in vote margins. That's especially true in primaries, where pollsters can't use partisan identification to stabilize the results.

—Dan Hopkins, 538 contributor

We've been tracking Trump's non-incumbent endorsees (because endorsing the incumbent is kind of a gimme) tonight, and so far he's 4 for 4 of the races called. Addison McDowell, Trump's pick in North Carolina's GOP primary for the 6th District, is also leading. But in California, state Assemblyman Vince Fong, who received Trump's endorsement for the Republican primary in the state's 20th District (Kevin McCarthy's old seat), is trailing at 26 percent with 23 percent of the expected vote reporting.

—Kaleigh Rogers, 538

It has become somewhat of a theme of our live blogs this primary calendar to note that Trump's challengers are beating their polls. This first looked to be the case in New Hampshire, where polls significantly underestimate support among Republican likely voters for Haley. But the pattern is more robust than one state: In fact Haley has been beating her polls by an average of five points (in vote share) once you account for undecided voters in these surveys. The consistency of this pattern is striking enough to warrant a post on the matter.

As Mary said earlier, polling primaries is hard! That is betrayed by the fact that POTUS primary polls are by far the least accurate type of poll in 538's pollster rating database going back to 1999. But error is different than bias, and when most of the polls are off in the same direction, something has gone awry.

That "something" is likely the difficulty in obtaining opinions of moderate Republicans from samples of "likely Republican primary voters." Remember that fewer than one percent of people called for a poll actually complete the interview. That means the ones that do are statistical "weirdos" (excuse the technical language). Pollsters adjust for this by weighting their samples to known population benchmarks — like the percent of all adults who are white, over 65, have a college education etc. But in primaries, such benchmarks do not actually exist; pollsters are just making educated guesses about them.

My theory is that most of these primary polls pulling samples of voters from voter registration lists are missing moderate crossover partisans and first-time voters. Additionally, we know that people who are highly motivated to participate in polls (the "weirdos") also happen to be the most politically and ideologically extreme Americans. That's a recipe for polling bias in primaries, where weighting to party, past vote and polarized demographic benchmarks does not control for the partisan consequences of overrepresenting politically engaged Americans.

Now, none of this is to say that polling is "broken." It's just hard to precisely sample a population that doesn't really exist. The polls for the 2024 primary still have below-average error, historically speaking, so we shouldn't go throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But this could nevertheless be a sign of pollsters having a hard time reaching moderate "normie" voters. And if that persists, it could have consequences for general election polls too.

—G. Elliott Morris, 538

In California's 40th District, with 46 percent of the expected vote in according to the Associated Press, engineer Allyson Damikolas (endorsed by EMILY's List), is trailing former fire captain Joe Kerr (endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC). The 40th is a key target for Democrats, who are looking to win back some of the ground they gained (and then lost) in the Orange County area. The 40th District spans Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, too.

—Meredith Conroy, 538 contributor

Court-ordered redistricting seismically impacted the congressional map in Alabama, precipitating high-stakes primaries in the new 1st and 2nd Districts.

Under the new lines, the Democratic-leaning 2nd District runs from Mobile across much of Alabama's Black Belt. Overall, 11 Democratic hopefuls are on the ballot, but State Rep. Napoleon Bracy, state House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels and former Justice Department official Shomari Figures may be best-positioned to advance to a likely April 16 runoff. Through mid-February, Figures had raised about $299,000, second only to Daniels's $323,000. But Protect Progress, a pro-cryptocurrency super PAC backing Figures, has shelled out $1.7 million to support him, according to data from OpenSecrets. By comparison, Bracy had only raised around $106,000. Still, Bracy may have geography working for him: His home base of Mobile County constitutes 36 percent of the district's population, more than any other county.

The new map also placed two second-term GOP incumbents into a head-to-head primary for the new, dark red 1st District: Rep. Jerry Carl, who currently represents about 59 percent of the new seat's population, and Rep. Barry Moore, who represents the other 41 percent. In such a deeply Republican seat, both contenders have tried to position themselves as the truest pro-Trump conservative. Carl has had the upper hand monetarily. Across his campaign and victory committees, Carl has brought in more than $2 million, compared with Moore's $688,000. And Carl is also getting somewhat more outside support, with groups spending $1.5 million to oppose Moore and just $1.1 million to support Moore or oppose Carl. A late February survey from Auburn University at Montgomery found Carl ahead 43 percent to 35 percent, perhaps in line with Carl's slight geographic and monetary advantages.

—Geoffrey Skelley, 538