Interesting finding: Hillary Clinton won both the 25-29 and 30-39 year old groups in the state, but Trump won 18-24 year olds by 22 points. (Source)
Well, proof that Generation Z is going to be super conservative and alt-Rightist.
Seriously, though, I wonder if instead of uniformly being more conservative than millennials, Gen Z's political affiliations will depend heavily on geography, even more than the general population. Maybe (just a hunch) Gen Z will be as liberal as their slightly older counterparts in places like California but will be much more conservative in Midwestern states.
EDIT: The opposite can and does happen. Floridian 25-29 year olds went slightly Trump, but Floridian 18-24 year olds went to Clinton by 35 points. (Source)
Yeah, if I recall correctly, Trump won a plurality of 18-24 year olds in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He did not win 18-24 year olds in Maine, but did better among them than he did among the 65+ demographic there. He also did better among 18-24 year olds in Pennsylvania when compared to his performance among the 25-39 year olds in the state.
However, Hillary Clinton decisively won 18-24 year olds in Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan so I don't think this is a rust belt phenomena. She also crushed Donald among that same demographic in various sunbelt states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Texas, etc.).
18-24 year olds are a pretty small group with low voter turnout. I wonder if a lot of the apparent variation is just noise.
One thing that I did notice was that there appeared to be a strong correlation between the size of the age gap (using 18-29s as a whole) and how the state trended. States like Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Maine all had virtually no (or sometimes reverse) age gaps, while places like Georgia had HUGE ones, though they can be at least partially attributed to 18-29s there being much less white.
