I certainly don't mean to blame my hardworking friends in the media. The view from academia is that I organized a whole class around the prospect of an exciting primary, cue the sad trombone noise. I agree with what you said, and also think this is sort of an outgrowth of the weirdness of a primary election. Is it a preliminary election with terrible turnout? A party process, but just a fairly open one? It's hard for all of us in the explaining business because it's honestly kind of a confusing thing.

—Julia Azari, 538 contributor

This is not a surprise, but ABC News projects that Trump will win the Republican primary in Oklahoma, based on an analysis of the vote. In the latest polling, he lead by nearly 80 points against Haley.

—Monica Potts, 538

Josh Stein, the North Carolina attorney general, is projected to be the Democratic nominee for governor. Stein was a state senator for 7 years before running for attorney general. He has twice beat out Republican candidates, and is the first Jewish person to be elected to statewide office in the state. His race against Robinson for governor will be one of the most closely watched come November, because a Republican win would give the GOP a trifecta for the first time since 2016.

—Kaleigh Rogers, 538

I'm watching Buckhout for another reason: She has the endorsement of the influential Susan B. Anthony List. The group started out endorsing pro-life women candidates as a kind of counterpart to women-supporting, pro-choice group EMILY'S List, but during the Obama administration also focused on endorsing Republicans against some anti-abortion Democratic women. It was a powerful insider voice against Roe v. Wade, and, since the fall of Roe v. Wade, has called for a national 15-week abortion ban. Democrats will run in November telling voters that the right to abortion nationwide is at stake, and abortion is definitely playing a role in Republican primaries across the country. With 22 percent of the expected vote reporting, Buckhout is currently leading with 56 percent of the vote so far.

—Monica Potts, 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