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

As we explained yesterday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Trump all set out to defeat several incumbent Republicans in the Texas state House yesterday (albeit for different reasons). The Associated Press has now projected winners in most of those races, and here's how they turned out: In total, at least eight Republican incumbents lost their primaries after being targeted by one of those three men. Another seven, including Speaker Dade Phelan, were forced into runoffs.

Abbott's muscle looks like it was the most effective: Five of the 10 incumbents he targeted (over their opposition to his school-voucher plan) lost, and another three went to runoffs. Trump also did OK: Two of the eight incumbents he targeted lost, and three more went to runoffs. Paxton didn't have as high of a success rate: Only seven of the 35 incumbents he targeted lost, although seven more were forced into runoffs. That's maybe not too surprising, though, since unlike Abbott, Paxton didn't put a ton of money where his mouth was.

—Nathaniel Rakich, 538