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

It's just past 2 a.m., and we've got major results in from most of Super Tuesday's wide-ranging slate of primary contests. So far, Trump has won at least 12 of the 15 states holding GOP presidential nominating contests, while Haley has won Vermont — though whether she hits a 50 percent (plus one vote) threshold of victory there will determine the exact number of delegates she takes home.

Either way, with an estimated 943 total delegates to Haley's 86 so far, per ABC News projections, Trump's well on his way to securing the magic delegate majority number of 1,215 — though it will take at least another week. He's so far secured 667 delegates tonight and is likely to hit the 769 mark that Elliott noted earlier would set him up to mathematically clinch the nomination on March 12. Of course, we're all watching to see if Haley drops out sooner.

In other highlights:

- As expected, Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson and Democratic state Attorney General Josh Stein secured their parties' respective nominations, and will go head to head in what's expected to be a close general election contest for governor.

- Rep. Colin Allred locked up the Democratic nomination in Texas's Senate race, and will face off against Sen. Ted Cruz in the general.

- Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff secured not only the top spot in a top-two primary, but also a likely glide path to the nomination, as the second spot on November's ballot went to Republican Steve Garvey instead of a second Democrat.

We're still tracking a dozen-odd downballot races that have yet to be projected, and awaiting presidential primary results in Utah and Alaska, so we'll see you back here tomorrow ... er, later today, with more results and analysis!

—Tia Yang, 538