G. Elliot Morris argues that the polls in Wisconsin underestimated David Crowley’s support in the 2026 Democratic primary because they included too many young voters (who mostly supported Francesca Hong) and too few older voters (who mostly supported Crowley). Using the L2 voter file, he estimates that just 2-3% of a typical partisan primary’s electorate is composed of voters under 30. This analysis is incorrect because the L2 voter file is missing age data for nearly all of the youngest voters, while it includes age data for almost every older voter. Consequently, any estimate of voter participation relying on unaltered L2 age data vastly understates voting participation among young people, specifically.

Morris writes:

I pulled two different pictures of the Wisconsin electorate from the L2 voter file. One universe consisted of of Democrats and nonpartisans who have voted in at least 11% of the even-year primaries they were eligible for. The other was built by taking the L2 list of active voters who cast a ballot in at least one Democratic primary since 2016. The two universes agree with each other almost exactly, which should give us some confidence in the targets being used. Among voters with a known age, both say the primary electorate is about 52-53% seniors and 2-3% under 30.

“Among voters with a known age…” is the key bit. Morris’ analysis would be correct if the missing age data was evenly distributed throughout the population. However, in Wisconsin, it is overwhelmingly concentrated among the young.

The reason for this is simple. Even though Wisconsin collects each voter’s birthday when he or she registers to vote, the state Elections Commission does not sell this information. Wisconsin’s actual public voter file–the one sold by the state–includes scarcely any information about each voter. Here is the list of data elements. Besides election participation records, it includes each voter’s name, address, and contact information. It does not include the voter’s age.

Instead, date of birth is one of the many voter attributes L2 acquires from commercial sources and adds to the Wisconsin voter file before selling it. The older a voter is (and the longer they’ve been registered), the more opportunities L2 has to determine that voter’s birthday. Mechanically, the coverage of the age variable increases with the age of the registrants.

Although the Wisconsin Elections Commission does not sell access to each registrant’s birth date, the WEC does publish a monthly file summarizing the registered voter population by five age ranges. Using that file, we can compare the number of actual registered voters in each age range with the number in L2’s most recent Wisconsin file.

The L2 file only contains birth dates, and thus ages, for 3% of registrants under the age of 25. This grows to 22% among those ages 25-34, and rises steadily thereafter, reaching 94% among voters 65 and up.¹

Excluding voters with missing ages means ignoring the youngest areas of the state. To illustrate: tract #001102 is roughly coeterminous with UW Madison’s campus. Here, the median age is 19 and 99.4% of registration records lack a birth date.

When Morris uses the L2 file to calculate that the typical primary electorate is 2-3% voters under 30, this just reflects the large amount of missing data among young registrants. Among voters with a valid age in the L2 file, just 5% are under the age of 35. Actually, 22.5% of registered voters are this young, according to the official statistics from the WEC.

Comparison of Wisconsin Registered Voter Records by Age Group
both data sources as of June 2026
	Official WEC		L2 Voter File
	Count	Pct.	Count	Pct.	Valid Pct.
18-24	316,765	8.8%	8,854	0.3%	0.4%
25-34	492,525	13.7%	109,671	3.3%	4.6%
35-49	819,517	22.7%	488,853	14.7%	20.5%
50-64	869,380	24.1%	728,947	21.9%	30.6%
65+	1,107,125	30.7%	1,043,544	31.3%	43.8%
Missing	—	—	955,884	28.7%	—

A better way to measure voter participation

So far, I’ve only been examining voter registration, not election participation, because the WEC does not publish official statistics breaking down each electorate by age. Fortunately, there is another reliable source we can use to measure young people as a share of the electorate.

After every November election, the Census Bureau fields the November Voting and Registration Supplement to its regular Current Population Survey (CPS). This survey is routinely used by pollsters to develop target weights, and it quite closely matches the official statistics published by the WEC.

To demonstrate, the table below shows statistics from the 2024 presidential election in Wisconsin. I compare the actual age breakdown of registered voters from WEC with the results of the CPS November Supplement and registered voter age counts from the L2 file.

Following the 2024 presidential election, 10.2% of Wisconsin’s registered voters were between the ages of 18 and 24. But because L2 had been unable to match birthdays for these relatively new registrants, the file showed that only 0.6% of all registered voters (and 0.8% of those with a valid age) were under the age of 25. In raw numbers, there were 18 times more registrants under 25 in reality than in the L2 file.

The L2 file also lacked birth dates for many registrants ages 25-34. In L2’s data, these comprised 5.8% of registered voters with valid age records, but in reality they made up 14.8%. Meanwhile, the L2 file includes a birth date for almost every older registrant, so when calculated as a proportion of voters with a valid age (as Morris did) they appear grossly overrepresented.

By contrast, the Current Population Survey appears quite accurate. It estimated that adults under 25 made up 9.3% of registered voters in November 2024 compared with the WEC count of 10.2%.

Wisconsin: Measures of Late 2024 Voter Registration by Age
	Official WEC Count1		L2 Voter File2			Current Pop. Survey3
	Count	Pct.	Count	Pct.	Valid pct.	Count	Pct.
18-24	395,027	10.2%	21,847	0.6%	0.8%	390,758	9.3%
25-34	576,162	14.8%	152,075	4.1%	5.8%	670,967	16.0%
35-49	879,180	22.6%	566,835	15.3%	21.6%	1,024,721	24.5%
50-64	945,704	24.4%	814,644	22.0%	31.0%	1,039,141	24.8%
65+	1,087,413	28.0%	1,074,589	29.0%	40.9%	1,060,893	25.3%
Missing	—	—	1,071,505	28.9%	—	—	—
1 Data from the Wisconsin Elections Commission as of December 1, 2024.
2 Data from the Wisconsin L2 file downloaded in early 2025.
3 Data from the November 2024 Voter Supplement, retrieved from IPUMS CPS.

Having verified that the CPS November Supplement accurately captures the age breakdown of Wisconsin’s registered voters, I will now use it to calculate voter participation by age. These statistics are self-reported and subject to normal sampling error, but I tend to trust them, given how closely their age breakdown matches the real WEC stats.

In this table, I adopt the 18-29 year-old age category used by Morris instead of the age bins used by the WEC.

Eighteen-to-twenty-nine-year-olds made up 20% of the adult population in 2024. They accounted for 14% of voters in the November election, according to the CPS. But in the L2 data, voters under 30 were only 3% of voters with a known age. The reason for this is obvious. The L2 file following the 2024 election lacked age data for 938,000 voters, and this included the vast majority of the youngest voters in the state, for whom L2 had so far been unable to add a birth date.

Wisconsin: Measures of Nov. 2024 Voter Participation by Age
			Number/share of voters according to the…
	Total Population1		Current Pop. Survey2		L2 Voter File3
	pop	Pct.	Count	Pct.	Count	Pct.	Valid pct.
18-29	921,521	20%	435,373	14%	68,327	2%	3%
30-39	759,131	16%	496,476	16%	209,702	6%	9%
40-49	714,657	15%	506,563	16%	396,191	12%	16%
50-59	706,834	15%	637,572	20%	464,985	14%	19%
60-69	800,599	17%	495,951	15%	610,679	18%	25%
70-79	545,130	12%	439,122	14%	474,926	14%	19%
80+	272,536	6%	190,028	6%	231,838	7%	9%
Missing	—	—	—	—	937,819	28%	—
1 Data from the Population Estimates Program July 1, 2024 single-year-of-age dataset.
2 Data from the November 2024 Voter Supplement, retrieved from IPUMS CPS.
3 Data from the Wisconsin L2 file downloaded in early 2025.

Crowley’s performance

David Crowley remained out of the governor’s race until July 18th. On July 17th, his support was presumably virtually 0%.² By election day on August 11th, his support had reached 40% to Hong’s 39%. The last Marquette Law School Poll was fielded July 22-27. At that time, we found his support was 7% to Hong’s 38%. Plausibly, the Marquette poll underestimated Crowley’s support a week after he reentered the race, but I judge it at least equally plausible that most of Crowley’s gains came in the final two weeks of the campaign.

Whatever the case, a far less likely explanation of Crowley’s success is that the August primary electorate included only 2-3% voters under age 30. That conclusion relies on misunderstanding Wisconsin’s voter file. The version of the file sold by the state does not include age information for any registrant, and the most common commercially available form of the file only reliably adds birth dates for older voters.

Footnotes

1. As of this writing, the most recent L2 file includes state data from June 6, 2026. Comparing that file to contemporaneous data from the WEC shows that about 7% of the state’s registered voters are not included in the L2 list of active registrants at all. These could be individuals who are redacted from the purchaseable voter file due to safety concerns.↩︎
2. It’s true that candidates who’ve dropped out of a race but remain on the ballot receive some of the vote. But most of this can be attributed to early voters casting ballots before a candidate withdraws. In the City of Milwaukee, where I know the composition of election day vs. early voters, Mandela Barnes (who dropped out on July 30th) received 10.4% among early voters but just 0.9% of election day ballots.↩︎

And How Many Early Voters Wasted Their Vote

In Wisconsin, anybody can vote early by mail or in-person at an early voting site for any reason, and many people do. This is referred to, interchangeably, as “early” or “absentee” voting.

In the August 2026 primary, 25.8% of ballots were cast by mail and another 11.9% in-person at an early voting center. Thirty-eight percent of Wisconsin Democrats didn’t wait until election day to cast their ballot in the governor’s primary.

Voting early is risky in a primary election, because the nature of the contest can change a lot in the weeks before a race. The first absentee ballots were sent out in late May and early voting centers opened on July 28th. David Crowley withdrew his candidacy on July 8th. On July 17th, Sara Rodriguez dropped out and Crowley reentered. On July 30th, Mandela Barnes–then polling in second place–ended his campaign. Any voter casting a ballot before July 30th ran the risk of wasting their vote on a candidate no longer running by election day on August 11th.

Statewide, 8.5% of absentee ballots were cast before Crowley dropped out the first time. Thirteen percent were cast while Crowley was officially out of the race but Rodriguez was still in. Then, another 17.7% were cast after Crowley reentered but before Barnes dropped out. Across Wisconsin, 39% of early voters cast their ballot before the final field was set.

How many of them voted for a candidate who subsequently dropped out? Doubtlessly, some of them. According to the Associated Press on Wednesday afternoon, the three suspended campaigns (Rodriguez, Barnes, and Hughes) collectively received 68,343 votes, or 8.6% of the total. Recall that Crowley defeated Hong by about 3,800 votes.

In most places, it is impossible to tell who those early voters voted for, because their ballots are counted along with those of regular, election day voters at each individual polling place. The complete results for each ward are reported one time, including ballots from every mode of voting.

However, many larger municipalities count their early votes separately at a central count location. The City of Milwaukee is one of these. In Milwaukee, the process of counting absentee ballots often drags on late into the night, well after the election day results from each ward have been tallied and published. Because Milwaukee always has tens of thousands of absentee ballots, this means that close statewide elections can never be called until those votes are reported–a process that occurs all at once and involves some drama as elections officials (accompanied by a police escort) transfer thumb drives containing the absentee results from the central count location to the courthouse. Once the thumb drives arrive, the early votes are added to the ward totals where each voter would’ve gone had they voted on election day. This instantaneous addition of thousands of votes to Milwaukee’s total is commonly called the “ballot dump.”

The ballot dump causes much angst in Wisconsin by providing fodder for conspiracy theorists who watch Milwaukee’s late addition of votes lift Democratic candidates to victory, as happened in 2018, 2020, and 2024. In fact, state law prohibits Milwaukee’s election commission from taking steps to speed up their central count, such as pre-processing absentee ballot signatures and envelopes before election day, and Republican legislative leadership killed a bipartisan bill aimed at reforming this in 2023.

As bad as these late-night ballot updates are for confidence in our elections, they are useful for researchers like me. We can use them to measure differences between the early vote and the election day vote. The contents of the early vote ballot dump are not explicitly reported, but by subtracting the election day totals for each ward from the final, complete totals, we can see exactly how early voters cast their ballots.

Crowley led Hong by just over 1,000 votes in Milwaukee’s election day returns, and he doubled that raw vote lead once the city’s absentee ballots were added. Unlike in several previous general elections, Milwaukee’s late night ballot dump did not change the leader of the 2026 Democratic primary. The added ballots merely added to the lead he already held in AP’s running tally. When it was all said and done, the City of Milwaukee was not individually decisive in Crowley’s statewide victory. He won the state by around 3,800 votes. Of that victory margin, the City of Milwaukee contributed about 2,200 votes–half from early voters and half from election day ballots.

Votes for Crowley vs. Hong
City of Milwaukee1
vote mode	David Crowley	Francesca Hong	Crowley net
early	9,423	8,357	+1,066
in-person	28,564	27,473	+1,091
total	37,987	35,830	+2,157
1 Excludes three wards (24th, 25th, & 27th) which did not separately report election day and early votes.
Data Source: Milwaukee County Election Commission unofficial election night results posted at 10:36PM and 1:09AM. Analysis by John Johnson (johndjohnson.info).

Milwaukeeans who cast their ballots early did waste their votes at a much higher rate. This table shows the share received by each candidate listed on the ballot among early vs. election day voters.

Share of the Vote, by Vote Mode
City of Milwaukee1
Dem. Gov. candidate	early	in-person	total
David Crowley	38.7%	47.4%	44.9%
Francesca Hong	34.3%	45.6%	42.3%
Joel Brennan	5.1%	2.3%	3.1%
Kelda Roys	4.1%	3.0%	3.3%
Mandela Barnes	10.4%	0.9%	3.7%
Missy Hughes	0.3%	0.1%	0.2%
Sara Rodriguez	7.0%	0.6%	2.5%
write-in:	0.1%	0.0%	0.1%
1 Excludes three wards (24th, 25th, & 27th) which did not separately report election day and early votes.
Data Source: Milwaukee County Election Commission unofficial election night results posted at 10:36PM and 1:09AM. Analysis by John Johnson (johndjohnson.info).

Sara Rodriguez, who ended her campaign on July 17th, received 7% of early votes and only 0.6% of election day ballots. Mandela Barnes, who dropped out on July 30th, took 10.4% among early voters but just 0.9% on election day.

All told, 17.7% of early voters voted for somebody who dropped out before the election, compared to just 1.6% of election day voters. In this way, election day voters appear to have been very well informed about which candidates remained actively in the running.

People who waited to vote until election day also appear to have consolidated more behind one of the two front-runners. Joel Brennan and Kelda Roys remained in the race until the very end, but they never drew much support. Combined, 9.2% of Milwaukee’s early voters picked one of these minor candidates. This fell to 5.3% by election day.

As discussed above, Crowley received a similar number of net votes (relative to Hong) in both the election day totals and the smaller absentee totals. But in percentage terms, Crowley actually did better with early voters, among whom he beat Hong by 4.4 points, than among election day voters, among whom his margin of victory shrank to 1.8 points. By the end of the race, Milwaukee’s Democratic primary voters had thoroughly consolidated behind the two frontrunners, with Hong winning 45.6% of election day voters to Crowley’s 47.4%.

On Tuesday, Wisconsin’s Democrats will choose their nominee to replace Governor Evers. Primaries like this one provide a unique glimpse of divisions within a party, but they don’t happen very often. The last time Democrats held a seriously contested statewide primary was actually the 2018 selection of Tony Evers to challenge then-incumbent Republican Governor Scott Walker.¹

The 2026 primary features frontrunner Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist, vs. a field of candidates representing other tendencies in the Democratic party. As of this writing, four candidates remain actively campaigning while a further three have dropped out but will nonetheless remain on the ballot.

The field was even larger in 2018, when 10 candidates appeared on the ballot, only two of whom had withdrawn their campaigns ahead of election day. While we wait for the results of the 2026 primary, I thought now would be a good time to revisit the results from eight years ago. What lessons does that election hold for Wisconsin’s Democrats today?

A fractured electorate made Evers’ plurality look dominant

After eight years as governor, Evers is now among the best-known politicians in Wisconsin, but he was far from the obvious choice to many Democratic movers and shakers in 2018. His only previous electoral experience was running five times (losing twice) for state Superintendent of Public Instruction. Still, in this role, he was the most prominent elected Democrat in state government, and he drew endorsements from the state’s two former Democratic senators, Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl.

Most people, 58%, voted for someone other than the winner, Tony Evers. However, the non-Evers voters were so fractured that his 42% of the vote represented a dominant victory over any other individual candidate. No single candidate consolidated non-Evers support.

The second-place candidate, Mahlon Mitchell, had the most support from labor unions. He was endorsed by the state AFL-CIO and SEIU, along with AFSCME, Amalgamated Transit Union, and IUOE locals. In the end, he won 16% of the vote.

Kelda Roys was endorsed by many progressive organizations and celebrities, including EMILY’s List, NARAL, NOW, Bon Iver, and Sarah Silverman. She won 13%.

Nobody else cracked 10%, but four more candidates still received at least 5%, or 1-in-20 votes cast. Kathleen Vinehout, a state senator from rural western Wisconsin, won 8%. Mike McCabe, the former director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, took 7%. Matt Flynn, an attorney from Milwaukee who had served as state Democratic Party chair in the early 1980s, ran a campaign largely distinguished by the strength of his opposition to Walker’s then-recently announced Foxconn deal. He won 6%. Paul Soglin, a fixture of Madison politics who at that point had served as mayor for 21 of the preceding 45 years, won 5%.

Rounding out the field, the two withdrawn candidates Andy Gronik and Dana Wachs nonetheless received about 1% each. This was still more than the last candidate, a little-known attorney from Racine named Josh Pade. His campaign remained active through Election Day, when he won 0.4%.

Results of the 2018 WI Democratic Gubernatorial Primary
	votes	pct
Tony Evers	225,082	41.8%
Mahlon Mitchell	87,926	16.3%
Kelda Roys	69,086	12.8%
Kathleen Vinehout	44,168	8.2%
Mike McCabe	39,885	7.4%
Matt Flynn	31,580	5.9%
Paul Soglin	28,158	5.2%
Andy Gronik1	6,627	1.2%
Dana Wachs1	4,216	0.8%
Josh Pade	1,908	0.4%
Scattering	211	0.0%
Paul Boucher (Write-in)	10	0.0%
1 Withdrew before the election

Evers won (almost) everywhere, while other candidates were popular in only certain kinds of places

Evers won 67 of the state’s 72 counties. Support for the other candidates often followed regional lines. Kathleen Vinehout exhibited this tendency to the greatest degree. Despite finishing in a distant fourth, she actually won a plurality in four counties, all in her rural home region. Mahlon Mitchell, while taking second place, won a plurality in just one county: Milwaukee. Here, as elsewhere in the state, his support was concentrated among Black voters and in traditional union strongholds.

None of the other candidates won a county, but their support was still often regionally defined. To show this, I’ve created a map with layers for each candidate. Click here to access the interactive version. For each reporting unit, the map plots the votes for a given candidate as a circle whose radius corresponds to the number of votes that candidate received. The map allows you to toggle on-and-off layers for each candidate. When multiple candidates are selected, only the winner of a given ward is shown. Click on any ward to see its complete election results for all candidates.

Below are two screenshots, illustrating these patterns.

In the first map, only the winner of each ward is shown. Tony Evers’ support (red) came from nearly everywhere. Notice the small number of purple dots in the west-central part of the state. These are wards won by Kathleen Vinehout. Also notice the dark blue circles emerging from southeastern Wisconsin. These are the wards in Milwaukee carried by Mahlon Mitchell.

The second map shows the results when Evers support is removed. Remember that Evers won only 42% of the vote, so this map actually shows a substantial majority of the votes cast. Here many more patterns are evident.

Vinehout’s territory (purple) grows to include most of western Wisconsin, even stretching all the way into the Madison suburbs. She received scarcely any support in the eastern half of the state, with the interesting exception of Door County’s upper half.

Mitchell drew support (blue) throughout southeastern Wisconsin and the state’s more industrial centers–including Milwaukee and its mostly working-class southern suburbs, Racine, Kenosha, Beloit, Wisconsin Rapids, and Superior. This latter city is noteworthy. In Milwaukee, Mitchell’s support strongly correlated with race. He was, after all, the only African American candidate, and he did best in the majority-Black wards on the north side. But fewer than 2% of Superior’s residents were Black in the 2020 census. While the city overall voted for Evers, Mitchell was the second choice in every single Superior ward, a pattern that does not occur anywhere else in northwestern Wisconsin. The most plausible explanation is that his strong union support made the difference in this city, where port-related heavy industry still plays a large role in the economy.

The most liberal candidate in 2018 was Kelda Roys (green). She drew support from a different set of cities, including most of Madison, Appleton, Stevens Point, Wausau, much of Green Bay, and Milwaukee’s wealthiest neighborhoods and suburbs. In a general election, many of these cities in the Fox Valley and north-central Wisconsin are politically quite purple, but judging by the primary results, the Democrats who do live there are among the more liberal in the state.

Mike McCabe (orange), who ran an outsider-y, populist campaign, was particularly popular in places like La Crosse, Waupaca, Eau Claire, and much of the northwoods. He came in a strong second to Evers in rural northern communities like Minocqua, Park Falls, Ashland, Washburn, and Bayfield.

Despite his long mayoral tenure, Paul Soglin (brown) finished lower than second in all but a handful of Madison wards. However, he showed surprising popularity in many surrounding communities, taking second in places like Janesville, Monroe, and Baraboo. Perhaps many of the residents in these towns were former Madisonians with memories of Soglin’s heyday.

Evers’ support was spread across most demographic groups

To better understand the sources of support for each candidate, I allocated the election results into census tracts and used ecological inference to estimate the share of major demographic groups supporting the top candidates. These are just estimates, and there is a fair degree of uncertainty around them. (An important source of this uncertainty is that the model uses statistics for the citizen voting age population in each tract, because we don’t know the demographics of the actual Democratic primary voters themselves.)

For the most part, Evers drew relatively even levels of support across these different categories. I estimate that he won 47% of the vote among those with no more than a high school degree–not much different than his 42% among graduate degree holders. Likewise, he drew 39% from those with household incomes below $50,000 and 40% from those of $100,000 or more.

There was a difference by age. Evers won an estimated 34% of the vote among those under 30. He did much better, 49%, among voters ages 65 and up. But by far the biggest difference in the table is along racial lines. I estimate that Evers received 44% from white voters and 37% from Hispanic voters, but only 8% from Black voters in the primary. Instead, Black voters supported Mahlon Mitchell by 81%. Mitchell, I estimate, was supported by 11% of white and 29% of Hispanic voters.

As one might expect, Kelda Roys (the most progressive candidate in the race) drew her strongest support from the most educated voters and was weakest with the least educated. She won an estimated 21% of votes cast by those with a graduate degree, compared to 7% among those with no more than a high school diploma. In contrast, Roys’ supporters showed little variation by age.

Estimated support for Candidates in the 2018 WI Democratic Primary for Governor
Among Selected Demographic Groups
	Evers	Mitchell	Roys	Vinehout
race
White	44%	11%	14%	9%
Black	8%	81%	2%	1%
Hispanic	37%	29%	10%	3%
education
High school or less	47%	20%	7%	7%
Some college	37%	17%	12%	9%
Bachelor’s degree	40%	13%	18%	9%
Graduate degree	42%	10%	21%	8%
income
Under $50k	39%	22%	10%	8%
$50k to $99k	46%	16%	12%	8%
$100k plus	40%	10%	17%	10%
age
18-29	34%	21%	14%	7%
30-44	45%	17%	12%	7%
45-64	39%	16%	13%	10%
65+	49%	9%	12%	9%
These estimates were calculated by allocating reporting unit election totals to census tracts, and then estimating vote shares using ecological inference as developed by Gary King. The model is the multinomial-Dirichlet RxC estimator of Rosen, Jiang, King, and Tanner (2001). Analysis by John Johnson (Marquette Law School Lubar Center).

Lessons for 2026

What lessons for the 2026 primary might we apply from this data?

Lesson 1: Don’t be surprised when progressive Democrats campaign Up North. It’s not just for the photo ops. In a primary, cities like Wausau and Stevens Point can be meaningful sources of support for the most liberal candidates.

Lesson 2: Regional candidates probably can’t win a primary. David Crowley’s campaign so far looks similar to Mahlon Mitchell’s in 2018. By itself, strong support from unions and Black voters is probably only good enough for second place.

Lesson 3: Winning the primary by a plurality of the vote is not necessarily a sign of weakness to come in the general election. Evers only got 42%, meaning most people wanted somebody else. He still won in November.

Lesson 4: Whoever wins the 2026 Democratic primary will need to unify a much more fractured party than Evers faced in 2018. His campaign won the 2018 primary by appealing to pluralities of nearly every demographic group. Differences in support by age played only a small role in 2018. This looks to be much different in 2026. The final Marquette Law Poll found that two-thirds of voters under 30 supported the frontrunner Francesca Hong, compared to just 14% of those 60 and up.

Footnotes

1. I’m not counting the 2020 presidential primary, during which Bernie Sanders’ campaign was still technically operational. However, by Wisconsin’s primary, it was already clear that Biden would be the nominee, and Sanders suspended his campaign the following morning.↩︎