With 70 percent of the expected vote reporting in Vermont, Trump and Haley are tied again at 48 percent each. If Haley wins there, it might compel her to stay in past tonight, but the overall delegate math is still against her.

—Monica Potts, 538

Want to know more about territories like American Samoa, which participate in the nomination process but aren't states — and thus don't have Electoral College votes or representation in Congress? I recommend this fascinating book, "The Not-Quite-States of America" by journalist Doug Mack. It explores the contradictions in the status of these areas and how it affects the people who live there.

—Julia Azari, 538 contributor

Well, well, well. It turns out neither Trump nor Biden will sweep every presidential nominating contest this year. ABC News can confirm that Biden has lost the Democratic caucuses in the territory of American Samoa to Jason Palmer.

Who is Jason Palmer, you ask? One of the many no-name candidates who runs for president every year. According to DDHQ’s Derek Willis, Palmer actually visited American Samoa to campaign, which explains how he was able to accomplish something that neither Marianne Williamson nor Dean Phillips has been able to do this year.

P.S. What’s up with American Samoa and Democratic caucuses? You may recall that, back in 2020, it was the only state or territory to vote for Michael Bloomberg.

—Nathaniel Rakich, 538

—Dan Hopkins, 538 contributor

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