The Hillary nomination is less surprising than Trump's for several reasons. The Democrats' rank and file usually line up behind whom their Establishment tells them to (and the superdelegates make doubly sure that happens), and the Democrats really didn't have anyone else, once Biden stepped aside. I thought at first that Sanders was in the debates only to make Hillary more palatable to the lunatic left wing of the party (he treated her with kid gloves in the first few debates), but then he got tougher on her when he unexpectedly (probably even to himself) gave her a run for her money, and exposed her weakness as a candidate.
The Republicans, on the other hand, had 16 candidates besides Trump, most of whom would have been acceptable to their Establishment, had they gotten enough traction.
The NY Times article I linked about Hillary is surprising because they can usually be counted on to toe the Democrats' Establishment line. I think the broader purpose of the Times article you linked was to show how awful life is among the trailer park rednecks in a Republican state. Had something similar happened in the inner-city projects of New York or Chicago, you can be sure the story would have gotten 6 lines on page 57, assuming it was reported at all.