Only one race we’re watching is still unresolved (the Republican primary for Utah’s 2nd District), so it’s time for some final thoughts. What big-picture takeaways do folks have from tonight’s results?

—Nathaniel Rakich, 538

The AP projects that state Sen. Mike Kennedy will win the GOP nomination in Utah’s 3rd District, which is currently held by Curtis. Kennedy leads the field with 36 percent, with 72 percent of the expected vote counted. Trampoline tycoon Case Lawrence is set to finish in second with 23 percent. Kennedy, a physician who ran an underdog primary campaign for Senate against Mitt Romney in 2018, will be a shoo-in in the fall.

—Jacob Rubashkin, Inside Elections

I think there's a decent argument that Burns's loss in South Carolina was a bit of bad luck. Neither Burns nor Biggs had held elected office before, and neither had significant backing from the state party generally, so that one may have been a bit of a toss-up. As Geoffrey mentioned, Burns had some baggage, so given two unknown candidates, that might have offset the benefit of the Trump endorsement.

But in the Utah Senate race and Colorado's 5th, Trump chose to back outsider-ish candidates rather than those who were supported by other Republican institutions or the party apparatus. Dave Williams was controversial from the start, running as a candidate while maintaining his position as party chair, which many saw as a conflict of interest. And neither Utah nor Colorado have ever been states that were particularly friendly to Trump's bombastic style, so his choice of outspoken MAGA candidates in those races may not have persuaded voters to those candidates.

—Mary Radcliffe, 538

Nathaniel, I think these were Trump’s riskiest set of endorsements so far. All three candidates had some serious weaknesses and they were running against credible alternatives. However, one thing I think is notable is that outside groups had no issue spending heavily against these particular Trump-backed candidates.

In South Carolina, Burns was on the receiving end of several hundred thousand dollars in independent expenditures from groups bankrolled by deep-pocketed GOP donors. Those same groups also spent against Dave Williams in Colorado. And in Utah? Well, Utah is among the least Trump-friendly of the heavily Republican states, and rather than back the more established conservative horse in the race, Brad Wilson, Trump looked further afield. And there was a lot of outside spending to back Curtis as well, while Staggs got little help.

—Jacob Rubashkin, Inside Elections

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