I certainly don't mean to blame my hardworking friends in the media. The view from academia is that I organized a whole class around the prospect of an exciting primary, cue the sad trombone noise. I agree with what you said, and also think this is sort of an outgrowth of the weirdness of a primary election. Is it a preliminary election with terrible turnout? A party process, but just a fairly open one? It's hard for all of us in the explaining business because it's honestly kind of a confusing thing.

—Julia Azari, 538 contributor

This is not a surprise, but ABC News projects that Trump will win the Republican primary in Oklahoma, based on an analysis of the vote. In the latest polling, he lead by nearly 80 points against Haley.

—Monica Potts, 538

Josh Stein, the North Carolina attorney general, is projected to be the Democratic nominee for governor. Stein was a state senator for 7 years before running for attorney general. He has twice beat out Republican candidates, and is the first Jewish person to be elected to statewide office in the state. His race against Robinson for governor will be one of the most closely watched come November, because a Republican win would give the GOP a trifecta for the first time since 2016.

—Kaleigh Rogers, 538

I'm watching Buckhout for another reason: She has the endorsement of the influential Susan B. Anthony List. The group started out endorsing pro-life women candidates as a kind of counterpart to women-supporting, pro-choice group EMILY'S List, but during the Obama administration also focused on endorsing Republicans against some anti-abortion Democratic women. It was a powerful insider voice against Roe v. Wade, and, since the fall of Roe v. Wade, has called for a national 15-week abortion ban. Democrats will run in November telling voters that the right to abortion nationwide is at stake, and abortion is definitely playing a role in Republican primaries across the country. With 22 percent of the expected vote reporting, Buckhout is currently leading with 56 percent of the vote so far.

—Monica Potts, 538

Yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected the legal arguments claiming that Trump could be disqualified from running for president in 2024 because of his connection to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone who held a public or constitutional office and has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to hold office in the future, unless Congress passes a law stating otherwise. Section 5 says that Congress can also pass laws to enforce any of the provisions in the amendment. Lawsuits in several states came forward to disqualify Trump on these grounds.

But until recently, very few people had given much thought to this part of the 14th amendment since the years immediately following the Civil War. Legal scholars brought up a couple of ambiguities — did it apply to the presidency, since a number of offices are named, but not the president? Do we have an agreed upon definition of what counts as participating in an insurrection and whether Trump did that in 2021? (Spoiler alert: No.)

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state of Colorado could not disqualify Trump, though there were disagreements about how far to take that ruling. A majority held that Congress would need to pass a law in order to enforce Section 3. Though the unanimity of the ruling papered over some of the partisan politics, the timing was impossible to separate from political considerations, since it came just in time for today’s big round of contests.

—Julia Azari, 538 contributor