I'm an Idahoan, so this take might be wildly insular, but I think that Republicans in western states (like Colorado and Utah) are still able to put forward candidates that are conservative enough to ward off Trumpian (typically newcomer) candidates with anti-democratic tendencies, armed with conservative bona fides that still serve what Trumpian conservatism feeds, like anti-establishment, anti-authority authenticity. But it is of a frontier flavor that I think Trump and many Trumpy candidates don't have.

—Meredith Conroy, 538 contributor

It's not exactly breaking news that Trump has a strong hold over the GOP. But if you look at the three cases where his endorsees lost tonight, each pick had potential challenges, either because of their own weaknesses as candidates or strong candidates running against them. In South Carolina's 3rd District, Mark Burns had a controversial past that invited outside spending to help his opponent, and Burns also barely raised any money from donors, mostly self-funding his bid with loans. In Colorado's 5th District, Dave Williams had rubbed a lot of people the wrong way as state party chair, to the extent that outside groups spent more than $2.6 million against him or on behalf of his main primary opponent. And Trump doesn't have as firm a hold over GOP politics in Utah, indicative of how his endorsee, Trent Staggs, couldn't beat out the establishment choice in Rep. John Curtis, who had a stronger track record as an incumbent congressman and received a ton of outside support.

—Geoffrey Skelley, 538

Trump made some ill-advised endorsements in today's races, and it feels to me like they were based more on his own personal taste rather than any kind of strategy. Williams in Colorado’s 5th District has been very outspoken, he’s an election denier, he’s made controversial, identity politics stands as the state GOP chair, and it could just be that Trump liked his MAGAness or the fact that he seized control of the state party in the way he did. I doubt his team would have chosen Williams as the endorsee, I suspect this was all Trump, and a similar scenario may have happened with Staggs and Burns.

—Kaleigh Rogers, 538

Going into tonight, Trump had only endorsed one candidate for Senate, House or governor who lost. Tonight alone, he endorsed three. Why do you guys think Trump failed so badly tonight? Was it just bad luck, or something real?

—Nathaniel Rakich, 538

The AP projects that Biggs has defeated Burns in the GOP runoff in South Carolina's 3rd District. With more than 95 percent of the expected vote reporting, she leads 51.1 percent to 48.9 percent — what looks to be a narrow win. This is a somewhat surprising result: Trump had endorsed Burns, who led in the initial primary vote on June 11 and even had an endorsement from the third-place finisher.

But Biggs may have triumphed thanks to more than $500,000 in outside help from two conservative super PACs that have been spending against more anti-establishment candidates in GOP primaries like Burns. Per FEC data, Conservatives for American Excellence and America Leads Action spent mostly against Burns but also made some outlays to support Biggs.

—Geoffrey Skelley, 538