While we're on the topic of Vermont politics (and books), I can't recommend Frank Bryan's book Real Democracy highly enough. Over decades, Bryan sent college students to attend town meetings throughout Vermont, where local residents make key decisions in a form of direct democracy that's uncommon elsewhere. The product is a highly readable book with plenty of local color about direct democracy in Vermont's towns.

—Dan Hopkins, 538 contributor

Ha, Jacob, to that point: If anyone is interested in some Vermont political history, here are a couple recs from someone who recently moved to the state (me). There's "The Star That Set: The Vermont Republican Party, 1854-1974," which lays out the rise and dominance of the GOP in Vermont, then its decline in the latter half of the 20th century as the state became two-party competitive. And "Philip Hoff: How Red Turned Blue in the Green Mountain State" investigates the changes in Vermont during the 1960s that surrounded Democratic Gov. Philip Hoff, the first Democrat to win Vermont's governorship after the Civil War. (This ends the Vermont Book Club portion of the evening.)

—Geoffrey Skelley, 538

ABC News projects North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson to be the Republican nominee for Governor in the state. This was the outcome that was widely expected, as Robinson had been leading the race. It's expected that he'll square off against state Attorney General Josh Stein, who is leading the Democratic primary, and it looks like it'll be a competitive race. If you're not familiar with Robinson, he first gained attention in 2018 when a video of him speaking at a Greensboro City Council meeting in support of gun rights went viral. In 2020, he was elected as Lieutenant Governor, the state's first Black Lieutenant Governor, and he has been a controversial figure.

A devout Christian, Robinson stays true to his roots by tending toward impassioned, sermon-style speeches. However, those speeches have often veered into inflammatory and bigoted language, particularly towards the LGBTQ+ community. As recently as February, he said that transgender women should be arrested for using the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity and suggested they "go outside." He has said straight couples are "superior" to gay couples, that "God made him issues, and that anyone in the GOP who doesn't support him will face God's "vengeance.". Suffice to say, he's a controversial figure, not unlike the party's leader, and will represent a significant shift in North Carolina state politics if he's elected to the governor's mansion this November.

—Kaleigh Rogers, 538

Yeah, Mary, I suspected we might see a sizable polling error or two! Polling presidential primaries is really hard — this century, presidential primary polls have missed the mark by an average of 9 points. And with just one poll in Vermont over the past month, we were putting a lot of eggs in one polling basket.

—Nathaniel Rakich, 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