In the early primaries and caucuses on the GOP side, a few patterns became clear. Donald Trump marched toward the nomination by winning most groups of Republican primary voters, but Haley proved a bit more competitive in pockets with large numbers of college-educated voters. Trump has expanded his 2016 coalition by winning more voters on the right, which we can see by his strength in places where Ted Cruz did well eight years ago. Haley, meanwhile, competes among moderates. Tonight, that meant dominant wins for Trump across a set of states, from Virginia and North Carolina to Texas and California. Among tonight's states, Virginia's demographics make it more friendly to non-Trump candidates — Rubio almost won it in 2016 — so Haley's failure to breech 40 percent there is yet another sign that she's able to win only a minority faction within today's GOP.

Overall, there isn't much surprise in tonight's Republican presidential results, beyond the question of whether Haley will eke across the 50 percent threshold and so take home all of Vermont's delegates. In part, that reflects the nationalization of presidential politics. In state after state, the same kinds of communities lean towards or away from Trump, so the results follow pretty consistently from a state's demographics and prior voting behavior. That makes for predictable patterns — and a less than surprising Super Tuesday.

—Dan Hopkins, 538 contributor

Thinking about what Kaleigh said, the fact that Trump and Biden have their primary races all but sewn up does make for some blah primary election nights. That's why all the attention shifted to Vermont, which Haley is likely to win, and to American Samoa on the Democratic side, where we all learned that someone named Jason Palmer had been running all along. I'm like Mary and ready to turn to the general election, when we can focus on how Biden and Trump are appealing to voters and what the consequences of their stances and potential victory might be.

—Monica Potts, 538

On the presidential side, tonight basically went as expected: Trump will win at least 12 out of 15 contests, while Haley has chalked up only one win so far — a narrow win in Vermont, which was demographically well suited for her as it is home to a lot of independent voters, a lot of college graduates and few evangelicals. Trump also now leads the delegate race 908 to 62, as of midnight.

The question is, what will Haley do now? She has said all along that she wanted to give the voters on Super Tuesday a chance to weigh in on the race, and they did so, roundly rejecting her. She's now so far behind in the delegate race that she can't credibly say she still has a path to the nomination. She has no more public events scheduled, so it seems quite possible that she will drop out of the race, but we haven't heard from her so far tonight. Might she sleep on it and announce her withdrawal from the race later on Wednesday? That's really the only suspense left in this presidential primary.

—Nathaniel Rakich, 538

As we discussed earlier, using presidential primary results to read the tea leaves of the general election seems to be a particularly fraught exercise. The dynamics (and electorates) of the two types of contests are wildly different, and several of my colleagues pointed out a variety of ways in which this type of analysis could go awry.

But now that Biden and Trump are both within weeks of officially securing their party nomination, I wonder if we'll start to see the conversation around the election turn. As Elliott noted earlier, Trump's speech tonight sounded more like a pivot to the general: Rather than mentioning Haley, he focused on Biden. And with the State of the Union on Thursday, Biden will also have an opportunity to try to focus the nation on his priorities for a potential second term. So it seems like both Trump and Biden have an opportunity to try to start communicating with the nation on their respective visions for the country.

The wildcard, for me, is whether voters are ready to pay attention. If they're not, then the messaging coming from the two candidates might start to turn into a low hum of background noise, essentially taking the edge off of any possible messaging wins as the campaigns beat the same drums for 8 straight months. If voters are ready to tune in, though, we may start to see polls shift in one direction or the other as campaigning begins in earnest.

—Mary Radcliffe, 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