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

In Tuesday's marquee race, Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman could lose renomination against Westchester County Executive George Latimer in New York's dark blue 16th District. This race is defined by internal Democratic divisions over the Israel-Gaza conflict, the influence of pro-Israel groups and controversies about Bowman's past behavior. Bowman has joined with fellow members of the progressive "Squad" and some other Democrats to criticize and oppose U.S. support for Israel, a position that made him a major target for pro-Israel groups.

Bowman lacks a strong electoral record, having won only 54 percent of the primary vote in his first reelection campaign in 2022. He also attracted scrutiny last September when he pulled a fire alarm in a Capitol Hill office building just before a high-profile vote to avoid a government shutdown, for which he was censured by the House and had to pay a fine. On top of this, old blog posts by Bowman came to light in January that included conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. All of this has helped boost the primary challenge from Latimer, who's also built up a strong local political reputation in Westchester County — where 9 in 10 of the district's voters live, according to Daily Kos Elections.

Still, the big story is Latimer's support from pro-Israel donors and organizations. Latimer has raised $5.8 million, $2.4 million of which came via individual donors who used the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as a conduit to contribute to his campaign. This has helped give him a financial leg up on Bowman, who has raised $4.3 million. And the monetary disparity grows far starker when we look at outside spending. Groups have spent a whopping $17.7 million either opposing Bowman or supporting Latimer, according to OpenSecrets, while they've spent only $3.0 million attacking Latimer or boosting Bowman. As a result, this has turned into the most expensive House primary on record, according to AdImpact.

The principal group behind the massive spending is United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with AIPAC, which has forked out $14.6 million on the race to take down Bowman. Despite the pro-Israel connection, the group's ads rarely mention the ongoing conflict, instead criticizing Bowman on issues such as not supporting President Joe Biden's position on a major infrastructure package in 2021 and a debt ceiling deal in 2023. Bowman and his allies haven't taken this lying down. In the last primary debate, Bowman attacked the "racist MAGA Republicans" — a reference to AIPAC's bipartisan sources of financial backing — supporting Latimer, a criticism leveled in ads put out by Bowman and outside groups backing him.

The most recent survey of the race — an Emerson College/The Hill/WPIX poll from early June — found Latimer ahead of Bowman 48 percent to 31 percent, which signals just how in danger Bowman is of becoming the first Democratic incumbent to lose renomination in 2024.

—Geoffrey Skelley, 538