I think that's right, Galen. In a CNN poll back in January, 35 percent of voters said they either don't follow the campaign at all or only pay as much attention to it as necessary. Another 38 percent said they don't seek out campaign news, but do follow the news that they encounter. Only 26 percent of voters said they are frequently seeking out news about the campaign. At this point in the race, voters are not really tuned in. It may be that whatever happens in the primary stays in the primary.

—Mary Radcliffe, 538

Julia, I hear what you're saying, and as a member of "the media," I have an inkling as to why this is happening. The primary contests are not competitive and we have to talk about about ... something ... anything!

To echo what you're saying, just 22 percent of the registered voters in Michigan cast a ballot in the primary last week. In 2020, voter turnout exceeded 70 percent in the general. These are just wildly different electorates.

I often feel flummoxed by comparisons of the midterms to the general, and in the midterms turnout is closer to 50 percent. A general electorate is far less engaged in politics and is — according to polls — more driven by economic issues. And frankly, a big chunk of them find both Biden and Trump unappealing.

So, while I do think there are interesting things to say about the primary, they are not the kind of things that will tell you who will win in November.

—Galen Druke, 538

The Congressional Leadership Fund, which is aligned with the Republican House leadership, has spent several hundred thousand dollars to prevent Sandy Smith from winning that primary again. CLF also spent (unsuccessfully) against Smith in the 2022 primary after several damaging stories about her came out.

—Jacob Rubashkin, Inside Elections

Not only did she drop more than $1 million of her own money into her campaign, she lives in a fancy, columned, waterfront manor in ritzy Edenton, with its own boat dock and putting green!

—Kaleigh Rogers, 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