What results would have changed if there was no turnout change?

[Karpatsky]

...is the poorly-phrased version of the question which I could fit into the title limit. What I wanted to write was this:

Which US election results might have been different if only people who voted in the last election could vote?

In other words, which candidates won by swinging voters in the center, and which won by bringing in voters who didn't vote often before?

I think potentially 2016 and 1992 qualify.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

If black turnout had been the same in 2016 as it had been in 2008 and 2012, then Hillary Clinton would probably be president right now.  That much I can say with some confidence.  Of course, a dropoff in blacks turning out was to be expected since Obama wasn't on the ballot this last time.  And Trump certainly got many people to turn out who wouldn't have otherwise, while making huge inroads with union members and other working class voters.

[Mr. Smith]

If black turnout had been the same in 2016 as it had been in 2008 and 2012, then Hillary Clinton would probably be president right now.  That much I can say with some confidence.  Of course, a dropoff in blacks turning out was to be expected since Obama wasn't on the ballot this last time.  And Trump certainly got many people to turn out who wouldn't have otherwise, while making huge inroads with union members and other working class voters.

Yes, but the exact amount of drop was NOT expected.

Nor was the drop in Latino turnout expected, especially since that was her forte in the primaries in both 2008 and 2016 [this one to a lesser extent].

It's obvious that Florida was gonna flip anyway, especially since Obama barely won in 2012 against Romney. NC could've been closer, but probably would've stayed R by 1 or 2 points. Georgia probably would've been R by about the same points McCain took it.

Michigan and Wisconsin would've held.

Not sure about the rest though.

[Hydera]

If black turnout had been the same in 2016 as it had been in 2008 and 2012, then Hillary Clinton would probably be president right now.  That much I can say with some confidence.  Of course, a dropoff in blacks turning out was to be expected since Obama wasn't on the ballot this last time.  And Trump certainly got many people to turn out who wouldn't have otherwise, while making huge inroads with union members and other working class voters.

Yes, but the exact amount of drop was NOT expected.

Nor was the drop in Latino turnout expected, especially since that was her forte in the primaries in both 2008 and 2016 [this one to a lesser extent].

It's obvious that Florida was gonna flip anyway, especially since Obama barely won in 2012 against Romney. NC could've been closer, but probably would've stayed R by 1 or 2 points. Georgia probably would've been R by about the same points McCain took it.

Michigan and Wisconsin would've held.

Not sure about the rest though.

Exit polls are unreliable but if you trust them then....

2004, 9.75 mil hispanics voted. 5.1 mil voted for Kerry and 4.3 million voted for Bush.

2008, hispanic turnout was 12.1 million. 8,108 mil voted for Obama. 3,75 mil voted for Romney. 242,000  voted other.


2012 Hispanic turnout was 13 million.   9.15 million voted for Obama, 2.7 Million voted for Romney. 258,000 voted other.

In 2016 it was 15 million. 9,950,000 voted for Hillary. 4.2 Million voted for Trump . While 904,000 voted for other a large increase from 258,000


Also assuming its right then what happened was Trump turned out a lot of new hispanic voters, brought back those 2004 bush hispanics, and then voters that hated hillary and/or liked trump despite being latino, Obama->Hispanics especially in the Hispano and ancestral hispanic areas in Colorado and Texas. and even Bernie->Trump hispanics.