From FiveThirtyEight, some insight into who voted Sanders over Clinton in New Hampshire:

The biggest dividing line in the Democratic race here was income. Sanders crushed Hillary Clinton by 30 percentage points among voters with a family income of less than $100,000, but won by just 7 percentage points among those making more than $100,000, according to the exit poll. That divide along income lines is an advantage for Sanders: More Democrats earn below the $100,000 threshold than above it. In 2008, just 17 percent of Democratic primary voters nationally were whites from families earning more than $100,000, compared to 43 percent who were whites from families earning less than $100,000.

That same article does cite what we're all hearing about Nevada's and South Carolina's voter demographics being considerably less white than were Iowa and New Hampshire. And it does also cite a polling average (not a forecast, per se) for the upcoming Nevada caucuses at 50.3 Clinton, 28.1 Sanders--however, the most recent poll part of that average dates back to December 23-27.

Another unknown is how Nevada's high rate of union membership will impact caucus results. While nationally only around 3% of workers are unionized, Nevada boasts one of the highest rates of union membership in the nation, at nearly 15%.

(P.S.--Just a couple of months back, the employees of Trump International Hotel in Nevada also voted to unionize, joining the Culinary Workers Union and Bartenders Union respectively.)

Just changed the caption of this post from "$5.6 million in 21 hours" to "$6.4 million in 24 hours," which is the last word yesterday from CNN.