“Donald Trump’s rivals for the Republican presidential nomination dug in Wednesday for a hard fight in the South Carolina primary, where Mr. Trump will seek to gain a clear upper hand in the 2016 race after his smashing victory in New Hampshire,” the New York Times reports.

“But the effort to stop Mr. Trump was only one element of the hard-edged, multifront campaign shaping up here among five candidates, nearly all of whom are facing immense pressure to demonstrate strength.”

Washington Post: “A state known for its nasty political brawls is about to host an epic one, pitting a foul-mouthed celebrity billionaire against a band of senators and governors scrapping to challenge him.”

New York Times: “Bernie Sanders’s nearly 22-point victory came after Mrs. Clinton’s advisers had worked hard to lower expectations, but privately, many people close to Mrs. Clinton, including her husband, believed the state would once again serve as a lifeline.”

“The rout rocked the Clinton campaign. As the results rolled in, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers took a somber assessment of the exit polls, recognizing early missteps that had allowed an insurgent challenger to gain the momentum, and their failure to capture the imaginations of young voters — in particular, young women.”

“A rethinking of the campaign’s strategy and message was already underway Tuesday evening.”

Paul Waldman: “Right now, the Clinton campaign has a much bigger problem than the story it wants to tell about New Hampshire. That problem is this: the campaign has no story to tell the voters about Hillary Clinton and why she should be president. … She doesn’t have a clear diagnosis of the problem the country faces, nor does she have an explanation of what the solution is, nor can she say why only she can bring about the better future voters are hoping for. Of course, Clinton can make a persuasive argument for her preferred solution on any policy area you can name. She also has a strong argument for why Sanders is being unrealistic about much of what he wants to do, an argument I basically agree with. And if you asked, she could tell you all about her ample qualifications for the presidency. But it doesn’t add up to a coherent story.”

Brendan Nyhan: “Mrs. Clinton has instead focused on her experience and electability, but that strategy offers little to motivate Democrats to vote for her. Her realism about the prospects for the Sanders agenda is implicitly dispiriting about the prospects for liberal domestic policy change in her presidency as well. Indeed, she often sounds as if she were acquiescing to a status quo that Democrats find objectionable. However implausible it may be, the prospect of a Sanders ‘political revolution’ at least offers a formula for change.”

“Mrs. Clinton will continue to struggle until she clarifies the stakes of the campaign — why does being more electable matter? … Until she fixes her flawed message, Mrs. Clinton’s aides are right to worry about an enthusiasm gap in her race against Mr. Sanders. When it comes to firing up the party faithful, you can’t beat something with nothing.”

“The tight grip of oligarchy upon the American political system slipped a little last night in New Hampshire,” David Frum writes.

“On the Democratic side, voters cast their ballots for one of the most implausible candidates in modern presidential history — less because his rhetoric was so mesmerizing or his program so inspiring than as a protest against an expected winner perceived as a lavishly compensated servitor of organized wealth.”

“On the Republican side, the upset was, if possible, even more stunning. For 20 years and more, Republican presidential contests have operated as a policy cartel. Concerns that animate actual Republican voters — declining middle-class wages, immigration, retirement security — have been tacitly ruled out of bounds. Concerns that excite Republican donors — tax cuts, entitlement reforms—have been more-or-less unanimously accepted by all plausible candidates. Candidates competed on their life stories, on their networks of friends, and on their degree of religious commitment… This year’s Republican contest, however, has proved a case study of Sigmund Freud’s ‘return of the repressed.'”