Eriposte at Left Coaster does an analysis, with easy-to-read charts. See here.
[I]f the [NBC] exit poll results are correct, then, outside of the significant increase in African American turnout compared to 2004 that benefited Sen. Obama, the significance of the South Carolina race is quite different from what is being portrayed in the media. . . .
- Sen. Obama actually underperformed on the white vote (significantly) - and it is possible he might have also underperformed on the black vote (by a small amount, although within MoE this may be a wash) - in South Carolina compared to Nevada. Hence, his impressive margin of victory over Sen. Clinton was largely because of the huge Black turnout.
- Sen. Clinton actually might have slightly gained some share of the Black vote from Sen. Obama, going from NV to SC (or it may have been a wash within MoE). This raises the question as to whether Bill Clinton actually hurt her cause in SC or likely helped her in SC with black voters. However, she lost a chunk of the White vote to Sen. Edwards in SC. I suspect this is because she decided to not really compete in SC and focused much of the campaign activity in SC on wooing Black voters.
- The most understated story in SC is that of Sen. Edwards. He held his miniscule share of the Black vote but grabbed significant chunks of the White vote from both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama in SC. Why? I don't know but it may have been due to his debate performance as well as the ad he ran in SC using his debate performance. To me, this is really the second biggest story out of SC.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming with the Nail Bill Clinton (NBC) network.