Okay, maybe I'm biased because it was my assignment to report out some of the downballot races tonight, but when the presidential primaries are basically all over but the cryin', they make for much more interesting politics. But once Biden and Trump make it official, don't let the intensity of the presidential race overshadow these races further down the ballot. There's a lot at stake — majority powers in two narrowly divided chambers! — and these races can sometimes tell us more about what voters think is important than the marquee race at the top of the ticket. Of course, you can always depend on 538 to keep you up to speed!

—Kaleigh Rogers, 538

With the exception of a remarkable outcome in American Samoa, this was a night without very many surprises. Trump and Biden continue to dominate their respective parties, even as doubts linger — about age, about policy and about electability, to name a few concerns. But Trump's main opponent, Haley, has just won her second primary of the season — Vermont. Biden has opposition on the left, but no challenger; from the center of his party, he has a challenger, but no clear opposition.

One lesson from all of this is that even for candidates with as many liabilities as these have, it is incredibly difficult to compete with the name recognition and influence of a sitting or former president. In theory, parties could opt to nominate someone other than the sitting president — in practice, they have not really done so since the mid-19th century. Parties have come to be defined by their presidents. We especially see this with Trump, but this primary season and Super Tuesday have highlighted just how much it's true of Biden, too.

And yet it shows the cracks in the presidential dominance of their parties as well. Even as Trump has largely taken over the GOP, there remains a consistent, if small, segment that would like to see the party move in a different direction. And even as Biden continues to (almost) sweep the primaries, activists are organizing to use the primaries to protest some of his policies. Still, it's telling that ultimately these intraparty disagreements aren't framed as fights between factions, but rather in terms of support or opposition to the presidential figure at the head of the party.

—Julia Azari, 538 contributor

We're not ending the live blog just yet since there are more results to come ... But we're going to get some shuteye and be back here tomorrow, bringing you updates from some of today's later-closing races.

So, it's "final" thoughts time — what did everyone take away from tonight's results?

—Tia Yang, 538

Interesting, Geoffrey. I was expecting Carl to win that one, as he had the geographic advantage: Carl and Moore were thrown together into this new district in redistricting, and Carl represented 59 percent of residents in the new district. But perhaps Moore’s conservative bona fides carried the day: He is a member of the House Freedom Caucus, so this primary was a victory for the insurgent wing of the Republican Party.

—Nathaniel Rakich, 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