So what? Why does that statistic mean anything in a highly fragmented contest? Bernie got 26% of the vote in Iowa, about the same in New Hampshire and just shy of 50% in Nevada. So in all three states more people voted against Bernie than for him.
Why does that statistic not mean something in a highly fragmented contest? The 1972 and 1976 Democratic primaries both started with 16 candidates; the 1996 Republican primaries had 12 and the 2000 Republican primaries had 13. Being the only candidate in 11 cycles to win the popular vote in the first three primaries/caucuses isn't an automatic ticket to the White House, no, but it's not nothing.
Assuming Sanders is even a close second in South Carolina, he's going to have tremendous momentum going into Super Tuesday, and historically it's unwise to write that off.
Canadian here, more of our elections nationwide are won with less than 50% of the vote than with more (last federal election had 124 candidates with >50%, of 338 seats).