Off this topic - good analysis on Vox basically backing up the common sense idea that one does not win the most Latino-heavy parts of the state, by losing the Latino vote by 8. And therefore it's obvious Sanders won whites by a bigger margin than 2.
Haven't read it yet and am not sure of the extent of the areas in question, but it's absolutely possible if one candidate had a much better door-to-door canvassing operation in those neighborhoods when compared to the rest of the state/electorate. Clinton was on the ground for almost a year in Nevada and even from the beginning, she knew that Latinos would be one of the most likely bellwethers in that state.
Hispanics aren't some monolith that only exists in certain precincts. They are 28% of the state's population. And those the vote in those precincts (which isn't all Hispanics) isn't necessarily going to be the same as the vote in the rest of the state. Vox is clearly in the bag for Hillary anyways.
C'mon, Vox is nowhere close to Washington Post, Slate, or even New York Times levels of in the bag!
They have a few hackish columnists and a few that are brainwashed by the beltway consensus, but I think they are much fairer than most DC outlets, tbh.
And most importantly their point here is blatantly logical.
