When numbers are cited and judged as important, cause should be identified: first, South Carolina had no had a Democratic primary since 2008, nearly a decade. Second, within the state, few saw Bernie as a threat, which the proportional differences in votes bears out. His voters had a bigger motivation to turn out than did hers; he was not able to bring new voters into the primary in significant numbers. Third, much of South Carolina is still a rural state; voters in primaries are not likely to drive the long distances to the limited polling places for a primary. Fourth, the Democrats do not have the equivalent of a state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers front that help organized Republican turnout.
Fifth, history shows in South Carolina, Democrats turn out when the stakes are real. Saturday, this was not the perception. Bernie, however popular among pundits, was not seen on the ground as a formidable threat or aspiring leader, despite the help of a couple of state senators and Killer Mike. Numbers have meaning in the context of custom and conditions; practices and situations that have real impact should not be overlooked to imply something that isn’t there. That under/over estimation and redefinition happened twice with President Obama–and both times Republicans lost.
What Hillary Clinton’s South Carolina Win Means – The New York Times http://nyti.ms/1RBqNwD