To Jacob's point, the "go ahead and underestimate me" phrase is a very clearly gendered one. And Trump's reputation on this issue hasn't gotten as much attention as it did in 2016, but it's not clear that some of the issues have gone away. Plus, Haley may also be highlighting the fact that, as far as she is from being a real contender for the nomination, this is the closest any GOP woman has come.

—Julia Azari, 538 contributor

People forget this, but McMaster was the first statewide elected official to endorse Trump back in 2016. Haley’s appointment to U.N. ambassador cleared the way for him to become governor, a post he still holds today.

—Nathaniel Rakich, 538

Nathaniel, I think that another explanation for Haley’s continued presence in the race is less political and more personal. Clearly, the two candidates don’t get along, and never really have. (Remember that the only reason Trump even tapped Haley as ambassador was as a favor to then-Lt. Gov. McMaster.) With the race getting increasingly chippy and personal, I think Haley may be staying in for longer than politically savvy because she knows just how much it gets under Trump’s skin. This is, after all, a politician who sells shirts that say "Go ahead and underestimate me, that’ll be fun."

—Jacob Rubashkin, Inside Elections

It was pretty clear Trump was going to be the nominee after New Hampshire. I think maybe Haley could be forgiven for trying to stay in for a couple more weeks to see if she could move the needle in South Carolina, a state she knows so well. But after it was clear that Trump’s polling lead wasn’t shrinking, she lost any practical justification for staying in the race.

—Nathaniel Rakich, 538

I have become a little obsessed tonight about what we should be expecting Trump to hit in this primary a priori. That is, given Trump is assumed to be the eventual party nominee and almost universally liked in the GOP, should he be winning more than 60 percent in South Carolina?

I already gave my case for answering "no" to that question: Strictly speaking Trump is dominating the delegate count and running ahead of his 2016 vote share in most counties with complete counts this primary cycle. And if you consider that Haley gets a home-state advantage in South Carolina tonight, Trump's adjusted vote share is close to 65 or 70 percent; our delegate benchmarks think Trump should have won 68 percent of the vote based on the demographics of the state alone. That's not the highest number, but it's not the lowest right? Would 65 percent be "good" for Trump? 75 percent? 80?

One counterargument to this centers around how the media has covered historical performances by incumbent presidential candidates. Journalist Jill Lawrence points out that in 1992, Patrick Buchanan challenged incumbent President George H.W. Bush for the GOP nomination and won 40 percent in the New Hampshire primary, holding Bush to 58 percent of the vote. That's an almost identical split to the results from tonight. The New York Times journalist Robin Toner wrote up the results with the headline "BUSH JARRED IN FIRST PRIMARY" and said the result "amounted to a roar of anger" from Republican primary voters.

If Trump was a true incumbent, I imagine the news media would use a similar headline to describe tonight's results in South Carolina. Perhaps our expectations for him are too low, or we're too focused on the broader state of play? Haley said in her concession speech tonight that she will stay in the race indefinitely, so I guess we'll get more data on Super Tuesday — only 10 days from now. The primary lives on!

—G. Elliott Morris, 538