Youth Vote

[Lothal1]

Clinton won 54%, Trump won 37%. Does anyone know how it was by state?

[Matty]

I wonder what it was in MI, IOwa, and Ohio?

[Virginiá]

Clinton won 54%, Trump won 37%. Does anyone know how it was by state?

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president
http://civicyouth.org/full-analysis-young-voters-in-the-2016-general-election/

I wonder what it was in MI, IOwa, and Ohio?

Michigan (18-29)  57 - 34 Clinton
Iowa (18-29)  48 - 42 Trump
Ohio (18-29)  51 - 42 Clinton

The most troubling trends for Democrats, are, imo, in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. She lost the 18-24 vote by very slim margins in WI and MN, and won by a small margin in PA. These are all states where Obama absolutely destroyed Romney among young voters, so for Clinton to actually lose it, or get a reduced margin, is quite something. However, it's worth noting that Clinton was an absolutely terrible fit for the rustbelt and is widely unliked and viewed as dishonest by young voters nationwide, so she was bound to tank among them in some places.

One election with poor youth vote results doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Gore did poorly among young voters and then the next 16 years led to a huge pro-Democrat trend among them. If the next Democratic candidate in 2020 also performs poorly in these states, I'd say they could be starting a shift to the right.

[Mr. Morden]

It looks like it wasn't any better for Dems in House races.  In the national exit poll, among those 18-29, 56% voted Dem. in their House race, vs. 42% for the Republicans.  So even if Clinton wasn't strong among youngs (compared to expectations), it's not like the downballot Dems were doing any better.

[SingingAnalyst]

Was the youth turnout lower than in 2012? One thing that strikes me is the relatively high percentage to minor parties (only 3% of voters over 40 voted 3rd party).

[Mr. Morden]

Was the youth turnout lower than in 2012? One thing that strikes me is the relatively high percentage to minor parties (only 3% of voters over 40 voted 3rd party).

As a percentage of the electorate:

18-29:
2012: 19%
2016: 19%

30-44:
2012: 27%
2016: 25%

45-64:
2012: 38%
2016: 40%

65 and older:
2012: 16%
2016: 16%

Of course, as you said, 3rd party support was high among the young this time.  So fewer youngs were voting for one of the two major parties, as compared to 2012.

[Figueira]

Aren't 18-29-year-olds a larger percentage of the population now than in 2012? Or is the difference negligible?

[Mr. Morden]

Aren't 18-29-year-olds a larger percentage of the population now than in 2012? Or is the difference negligible?

I don't know.  Just based on this:

https://populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2012/
https://populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2016/

I'm guessing the difference is pretty tiny.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

I knew Trump would do better than Romney with young voters, but I didn't expect him to win them in WI or IA. The age gap now is mostly just the result of younger voters being less likely to be married and less likely to be white. According to some studies, Gen Z (teenagers right now) is less liberal than Gen X or the Millennials. My anecdotal observations back this, as well. Perhaps the democrat party's grip on college towns will soon go the way of its grip on union towns.

Probably not. Clinton was uniquely out of touch and the alt-right gave enthusiastic support to Trump in order to get recognition. If this was Bernie vs Jeb, it would have been even more lopsided than Obama vs McCain.

[hopper]

I knew Trump would do better than Romney with young voters, but I didn't expect him to win them in WI or IA. The age gap now is mostly just the result of younger voters being less likely to be married and less likely to be white. According to some studies, Gen Z (teenagers right now) is less liberal than Gen X or the Millennials. My anecdotal observations back this, as well. Perhaps the democrat party's grip on college towns will soon go the way of its grip on union towns.

Probably not. Clinton was uniquely out of touch and the alt-right gave enthusiastic support to Trump in order to get recognition. If this was Bernie vs Jeb, it would have been even more lopsided than Obama vs McCain.

Gen Z is maybe more moderate than  Yers but Yers are still more liberal than Xers. Remember Yers went to HS during the Bush W. Years and remembering how bad the Bush W. Presidency went in his 2nd term voted for Obama once they graduated HS.

[RI]

18-29ers are less white than other age groups. Trump won white 18-29ers nationally 47-43, so the fact that he won the youth vote in Iowa, one of the whitest states, isn't surprising.

[BaldEagle1991]

18-29ers are less white than other age groups. Trump won white 18-29ers nationally 47-43, so the fact that he won the youth vote in Iowa, one of the whitest states, isn't surprising.

[hopper]

Those numbers actually still seem troubling for Republicans.  Democrats just need to hold onto that generation as it ages because the next generation isn't going to be much better for the GOP as it will inevitably be very diverse.

The country is just getting more Hispanic and less Non-Hispanic White.

[Figueira]

According to some studies, Gen Z (teenagers right now) is less liberal than Gen X or the Millennials. My anecdotal observations back this, as well. Perhaps the democrat party's grip on college towns will soon go the way of its grip on union towns.

lol

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

Those numbers actually still seem troubling for Republicans.  Democrats just need to hold onto that generation as it ages because the next generation isn't going to be much better for the GOP as it will inevitably be very diverse.

The country is just getting more Hispanic and less Non-Hispanic White.

Not true, all minority groups are growing faster than whites, some more than others.  In fact, the fastest growing group is Asians.  But the general ordering in terms of relative growth:

1) Asian
2) Hispanic
3) Black
4) Non-Hispanic White

Everything I've read suggests that the Black population is growing only slightly faster than the White population though.

What about the "mixed" race segment. The growing number of offspring of mixed couples. Asian/white and white/Hispanic couples are very common particularly in the west, southwest, and Florida.

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

Those numbers actually still seem troubling for Republicans.  Democrats just need to hold onto that generation as it ages because the next generation isn't going to be much better for the GOP as it will inevitably be very diverse.

The country is just getting more Hispanic and less Non-Hispanic White.

Not true, all minority groups are growing faster than whites, some more than others.  In fact, the fastest growing group is Asians.  But the general ordering in terms of relative growth:

1) Asian
2) Hispanic
3) Black
4) Non-Hispanic White

Everything I've read suggests that the Black population is growing only slightly faster than the White population though.

What about the "mixed" race segment. The growing number of offspring of mixed couples. Asian/white and white/Hispanic couples are very common particularly in the west, southwest, and Florida.

True.  I haven't seen any numbers on how that group votes but I suspect that overall it's pretty strong Democrat.  Most of the mixed race Asian/White couples I know are highly educated, liberals in urban centers.  I don't know many Hispanic/White couples but I'd presume they lean left as well.

I would imagine this to be the case as well. Certainly Asian/white couples would lean liberal but I wonder if the same can be said of Hispanic/white couples. Either way I think the continued intermarriage between whites and asians/Hispanics will continue the expansion of the definition of "whiteness" There's historical precedent of this with the Italians and the Irish not being considered part of the traditional white WASP society.

I think if the intermarriage rates continue to increase then their offspring will start self indentifying as white. This is already happening with Hispanic Americans who 53% of them (according to the 2010 census) already self identify as white. I suspect asians will also follow in the same path. Perhaps I'm basing too much of this on my own observations as someone who's grown up in Southern California.

I guess my point is that the youth aren't a lockdown for Democrats in the long run. If white millennials are still voting Republican and the definition of whiteness begins to encompass more minority groups then we could see a gradual generational shift. Maybe not, but we'll see. I love being a cynic, particularly after seeing the results of this election.

[Virginiá]

Those numbers actually still seem troubling for Republicans.  Democrats just need to hold onto that generation as it ages because the next generation isn't going to be much better for the GOP as it will inevitably be very diverse.

This is one reason why Trump might be beneficial long-term in terms of partisan advantages for Democrats. People growing up under so many years of one-party White House rule will inevitably build grievances towards that party as said party takes the blame for years and years of troublesome issues - terrorist attacks, economic problems, various other social conflicts, etc, which could weaken the bonds to newer generations, particularly if the party can't adapt to changing attitudes.

However, with Trump in and widely despised by young people, he could serve as a booster shot to the Democratic Party in that he'll drive young people even further away from the GOP and help prime teenagers against the Republican Party as they enter the electorate. Especially if we get a recession sometime in the next 4 years. The fact that the GOP has done pretty much nothing to adapt to newer generations compounds that problem bigly.

At this point, I'm just wondering exactly when the GOP will win the youth vote nationally, which would realistically require winning substantially more minorities than they are now. It would represents a long-lasting breakthrough in the electorate. If they can't, they will never win young voters and thus (likely) the future.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Given the total lack of an age gap in a state like Iowa, I wonder how much of the age gap can actually simply be attributed to the racial gap?  Or, is Iowa just a case of the younger generation reflecting a strong trend in the state?  Maybe some of both?

[hopper]

Those numbers actually still seem troubling for Republicans.  Democrats just need to hold onto that generation as it ages because the next generation isn't going to be much better for the GOP as it will inevitably be very diverse.

The country is just getting more Hispanic and less Non-Hispanic White.

Not true, all minority groups are growing faster than whites, some more than others.  In fact, the fastest growing group is Asians.  But the general ordering in terms of relative growth:

1) Asian
2) Hispanic
3) Black
4) Non-Hispanic White

Everything I've read suggests that the Black population is growing only slightly faster than the White population though.

No Asians are only 4-5% of the US Population where as Hispanics are about 18-19% of the US Population. The population make-up statistics doesn't suggest that Asians are growing faster than Hispanics as a make-up of the US Population percentage wise.

[hopper]

Those numbers actually still seem troubling for Republicans.  Democrats just need to hold onto that generation as it ages because the next generation isn't going to be much better for the GOP as it will inevitably be very diverse.

The country is just getting more Hispanic and less Non-Hispanic White.

Not true, all minority groups are growing faster than whites, some more than others.  In fact, the fastest growing group is Asians.  But the general ordering in terms of relative growth:

1) Asian
2) Hispanic
3) Black
4) Non-Hispanic White

Everything I've read suggests that the Black population is growing only slightly faster than the White population though.

What about the "mixed" race segment. The growing number of offspring of mixed couples. Asian/white and white/Hispanic couples are very common particularly in the west, southwest, and Florida.

True.  I haven't seen any numbers on how that group votes but I suspect that overall it's pretty strong Democrat.  Most of the mixed race Asian/White couples I know are highly educated, liberals in urban centers.  I don't know many Hispanic/White couples but I'd presume they lean left as well.

I would imagine this to be the case as well. Certainly Asian/white couples would lean liberal but I wonder if the same can be said of Hispanic/white couples.
I

"Other" voted 56-37% in favor of Hillary. "Other" made up 3% of the electorate in 2016.

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

Those numbers actually still seem troubling for Republicans.  Democrats just need to hold onto that generation as it ages because the next generation isn't going to be much better for the GOP as it will inevitably be very diverse.

The country is just getting more Hispanic and less Non-Hispanic White.

Not true, all minority groups are growing faster than whites, some more than others.  In fact, the fastest growing group is Asians.  But the general ordering in terms of relative growth:

1) Asian
2) Hispanic
3) Black
4) Non-Hispanic White

Everything I've read suggests that the Black population is growing only slightly faster than the White population though.

What about the "mixed" race segment. The growing number of offspring of mixed couples. Asian/white and white/Hispanic couples are very common particularly in the west, southwest, and Florida.

True.  I haven't seen any numbers on how that group votes but I suspect that overall it's pretty strong Democrat.  Most of the mixed race Asian/White couples I know are highly educated, liberals in urban centers.  I don't know many Hispanic/White couples but I'd presume they lean left as well.

I would imagine this to be the case as well. Certainly Asian/white couples would lean liberal but I wonder if the same can be said of Hispanic/white couples.
I

"Other" voted 56-37% in favor of Hillary. "Other" made up 3% of the electorate in 2016.

These potential "others" will start self identifying as white in the future; particularly the descendants of white/Hispanic and white/Asian couples. "Other" will never be a large part of the electorate. 53% of Hispanic Americans already self identify as white according to the 2010 census. The continued assimilation of these new immigrant groups and the intermarriage rates with the white American population will expand the definition of whiteness in this country. Same thing happened with the Irish and Italians.

[PresidentSamTilden]

A quote from the CIRCLE article:

"Young people are clamoring for significant change, though there are deep divisions on what that change should look like. Youth also seem increasingly skeptical of the two major political parties’ ability to bring the change they seek."

Perhaps the ground is fertile for a new party to emerge and soak up youth voters.

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

Those numbers actually still seem troubling for Republicans.  Democrats just need to hold onto that generation as it ages because the next generation isn't going to be much better for the GOP as it will inevitably be very diverse.

The country is just getting more Hispanic and less Non-Hispanic White.

Not true, all minority groups are growing faster than whites, some more than others.  In fact, the fastest growing group is Asians.  But the general ordering in terms of relative growth:

1) Asian
2) Hispanic
3) Black
4) Non-Hispanic White

Everything I've read suggests that the Black population is growing only slightly faster than the White population though.

What about the "mixed" race segment. The growing number of offspring of mixed couples. Asian/white and white/Hispanic couples are very common particularly in the west, southwest, and Florida.

True.  I haven't seen any numbers on how that group votes but I suspect that overall it's pretty strong Democrat.  Most of the mixed race Asian/White couples I know are highly educated, liberals in urban centers.  I don't know many Hispanic/White couples but I'd presume they lean left as well.

I would imagine this to be the case as well. Certainly Asian/white couples would lean liberal but I wonder if the same can be said of Hispanic/white couples.
I

"Other" voted 56-37% in favor of Hillary. "Other" made up 3% of the electorate in 2016.

These potential "others" will start self identifying as white in the future; particularly the descendants of white/Hispanic and white/Asian couples. "Other" will never be a large part of the electorate. 53% of Hispanic Americans already self identify as white according to the 2010 census. The continued assimilation of these new immigrant groups and the intermarriage rates with the white American population will expand the definition of whiteness in this country. Same thing happened with the Irish and Italians.

That's different though.  50% of hispanics probably are white (i.e., descendants of Europeans).  I'm not sure other including "white/asian" or "white/black" mixes will as readily convert to white.  Hispanic isn't actually a race, it's an ethnicity comprised of different races, a strong proportion of which are white people that moved from Spain, Italy, Germany to Central and South America.

Most Hispanics are mestizos, mixed European and indigenous heritage. In Mexico, estimates show that only roughly 10 percent of the population identifies as solely European; the vast majority of their population identified as mestizo. This is why, at least in my experience growing up in California, acquaintances I've met whose parents were one Hispanic and one white usually looked white themselves. This has also been my experience with my cousins and other acquaintances who are half white and half Asian. Asian and Hispanic cultures will not only assimilate culturally with the definition of whiteness but will physically start to "look" white overtime.

[Figueira]

Perhaps the ground is fertile for a new party to emerge and soak up youth voters.

Not really.

[PresidentSamTilden]

Perhaps the ground is fertile for a new party to emerge and soak up youth voters.

Not really.

Well, why not? Here's some data indicating that it could be possible for a new approach to be successful with young people. In addition, a nuclear bomb was dropped on US politics a month ago today. It's gonna have major consequences, maybe it changes the game a bit for 2020.