Haley’s nearly 30-point deficit in her home state isn’t for lack of trying — especially when it comes to advertising. As was the case in New Hampshire, Haley and her allies have outspent Trump, and the 13-to-1 disparity is only more striking when juxtaposed with her lack of movement in the polls.

Haley’s campaign has spent $5.8 million on ads in South Carolina, according to AdImpact, which tracks political ad spending. And her allies at Stand for America, the super PAC set up to support her bid, and Americans for Prosperity Action, the Charles Koch-affiliated group that endorsed her last year, have chipped in a combined $10.3 million. The vast majority of that spending ($14.2 million of it) has come in the last six weeks, since the Iowa caucuses. Another anti-Trump group, the Club for Growth PAC Win it Back, spent $1.7 million against the former president last summer.

Trump, meanwhile, has spent just $1.2 million to date — and his allies’ super PACs have barely spent anything. To put that in perspective, Never Back Down, the super PAC formed to support the failed campaign of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, has spent three times as much in South Carolina as Trump has — and it hasn’t aired any ads since July of last year.

It’s not a complete surprise that Haley is pouring so much more money into South Carolina. It’s pretty close to a must-win for her at this point, so she’s not well-served by saving her cash for later. But also, as her most recent FEC filings demonstrated, she actually raised more money than Trump in January.

Will that translate into electoral success? The polling says it’s not likely. But if Haley does pull off the upset of the cycle, her massive spending advantage will be a big part of why.

—Jacob Rubashkin, Inside Elections

Back in 2016, won the South Carolina primary by 10 points, garnering 32 percent of the vote. His two main rivals, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, each received about 22 percent, with Rubio finishing second. Yet with a crowded field — three other candidates won between 7 and 8 percent — Trump's showing was good enough to carry all but two counties in the state. He also won every congressional district, allowing him to sweep the state's 50 national convention delegates.

Trump's strongest-performing area was in the state's northeast, where he won about 44 percent of the vote in the Myrtle Beach-Florence media market, which made up close to one-eighth of the state's vote. That region should once again be one of Trump's strongest today: A mid-February poll from The Citadel found him winning around two-thirds of the vote in that media market, and a similarly-timed Suffolk University/USA Today survey found him garnering about 7 in 10 voters in the Pee Dee region, which overlaps much of the same turf. He's also poised to improve in a critical area of (relative) weakness in 2016: the vote-rich Upstate area around Greenville in the state's northwest, which contributed about one-third of the 2016 primary vote and was Cruz's strongest region. Both The Citadel and Suffolk polls found Trump at around 70 percent support there. His strength in the Upstate region — the most evangelical-rich part of the state — will come in part from having won over very conservative and white evangelical voters more likely to have backed Cruz in 2016.

For her part, Haley will likely do best in Rubio's strongest places, like the more affluent and well-educated Charleston area, where Haley pulled in between 40 and 50 percent of respondents in surveys from The Citadel and Suffolk. Charleston County proper was one of just two counties that Rubio carried in 2016, the other being Richland County (home to Columbia, the state capital) in the center of the state. Haley could be competitive there, too, as the Suffolk poll found her running within a dozen points of Trump in central South Carolina. Overall, the Charleston and Columbia media markets made up about one-sixth and one-fifth of the state's 2016 GOP primary vote, respectively.

—Geoffrey Skelley, 538

In polling conducted since the New Hampshire primary, Trump is viewed favorably by an average of 73 percent of likely South Carolina Republican primary voters, while Haley's average favorability is 51 percent. These numbers are slightly better for the former South Carolina governor than national polling, which, according to 538's tracking, shows 43 percent of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Haley and 81 percent have a favorable opinion of Trump.

—Mary Radcliffe, 538

Spoiler: Whoever wins the Republican primary is probably going to win the state in the general election. Trump beat Biden there by 12 points in 2020, and South Carolina has voted almost exclusively for Republicans in presidential elections since Civil Rights legislation under President Lyndon Johnson flipped most of the South from blue to red. The one exception? The state voted for the Democratic governor of neighboring Georgia, Jimmy Carter, in 1976.

The state reliably votes conservative in other elections too. Its governor, both senators, and six of its seven representatives are Republicans. And many Republican voters there seem fiercely loyal to the former president. Former Rep. Tom Rice, one of ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in the House after Jan. 6, was ousted in his midterm primary in 2022.

That said, South Carolina may be changing. Last year it was the fastest-growing state in the country by population growth, driven by the state's growing economy and its relatively affordable cost-of-living. In fact, nearly [10 percent of the potential voting population])) moved to the state since Haley left the governorship in 2017.

While many of those newcomers may have come from the more expensive coasts along the Northeast corridor and California, they don't necessarily seem to be changing the state's GOP electorate, as Haley has struggled to overcome Trump's popularity and name recognition among Republican-leaning new residents. Newcomers or no, Haley's challenges winning over voters in her home state seem not so different from her efforts in the rest of the country.

—Monica Potts, 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