Yet everybody, it seems, has something to say about Latino politics. Everybody that is, except Latinos.

The awkwardness and simplicity seen and heard in the coverage of the Latino electorate illustrates how ill-equipped the news organizations, the political parties and the society as a whole are to understand and deal with the historic political shift previewed in Nevada: the death of the black-white electorate. Simplistic talk about the Latino vote provides another example of how we live when the 'experts' and their organizations are increasingly out of touch with the dynamism and complexity of the electorate and the general populace.

As a result, the growth of the very diverse Latino electorate will likely force the revelation of more inconvenient truths. Principle among them is the media's conclusion that anti-black racism among Latinos explains why they voted Clinton and not Obama in Nevada. Story after story tries to fit the Latino vote into the procrustean bed of old-school, black v. white politics.

Including me, obviously. For the record, I'm not sure that's wrong. I've argued that the Latino v. African-American storyline is flawed, because it doesn't take into account the diversity of both communities. That said, I'm not sure that in fifty years, Mexican-Americans in particular, who comprise a large percentage of Latinos in the country, won't simply be viewed as another tribe of ethnic whites. Isn't much of Miami's Cuban-American community hewing to that trajectory? I also don't think you can dismiss evidence of Latino racism because the academic in question doesn't watch Univsion.

That said, I'm especially sensitive to the idea that it's almost entirely white--and sometimes black--reporters/analysts who are telling the Latino side of this story. What the fuck do they know? I have a rule when it comes to black people. If you haven't sat down for dinner with a black family in the past year, you should really avoid generalizing about black people. The same follows for Latinos.