To be blunt, there is no practical reason for Haley to stay in the race at this point. She lost New Hampshire and South Carolina, which according to our modeling should be two of her very best states; as a result, she’s probably not going to win a single contest.

It also doesn’t make sense for Haley to stay in just in case the Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot. If that happens, other candidates like DeSantis will probably just jump back into the race, and they’ll be better aligned with where the Republican Party is these days. In fact, even as we sit here today, I’d honestly give DeSantis better odds than Haley of winning the GOP nomination, even as an inactive candidate.

Basically, there’s only one good reason for Haley to stay in at this point: principle. To give voice to an anti-Trump vision for the Republican Party. To be able to say “I told you so” if Trump loses in the fall. Because she sure isn’t going to be president.

—Nathaniel Rakich, 538

Trump made a comment about how he would hold an election tomorrow if he could. It's true enough that plenty of countries hold elections on a less fixed schedule, but a candidate facing a number of serious charges related to election interference might not want to joke about that. But some of his other remarks, like his joke about how he doesn't mind talking about himself, reminded me of the feel of the 2016 campaign, and his ability to sometimes make voters laugh and feel in on the joke.

—Julia Azari, 538 contributor

More race projections are coming in mere minutes after polls closed at 7 p.m. The Associated Press has already called the race for Trump based on their polling of voters, which showed Trump with a sizable enough lead to make the call. That call was echoed by other news organizations, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and MSNBC. ABC News also projected Trump as the winner right as polls closed.

—Kaleigh Rogers, 538

I tend to agree with you, Geoffrey. Haley is presenting a very different kind of agenda and policy positions than the more MAGA side of the Republican Party. And voters are noticing the difference.

In polling from YouGov/CBS News in February, likely South Carolina GOP primary voters were asked how they thought each candidate’s policies would impact the country if they were to win the presidency. Seventy-three percent said Trump’s policies would make them financially better off, while only 32 percent said the same of Haley. On immigration, 88 percent of voters said that Trump’s policies would make the U.S.-Mexico border more secure, compared to 53 percent who said the same of Haley’s policies.

The contrast is particularly stark on foreign policy: When asked how Haley’s policies would impact U.S. military involvement overseas, 41 percent said she would increase, 44 percent said she would not change and 15 percent said she would decrease military involvement. The reverse was true of what voters expected from Trump: a plurality of 47 percent thought Trump’s policies would decrease U.S. military involvement overseas, while 20 and 33 percent expected his policies to not change or to increase involvement, respectively.

So I’d buy an argument that Haley may be staying in to keep a more hawkish foreign policy position alive in the party, which makes sense, given her history as U.N. Ambassador.

—Mary Radcliffe, 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