I wonder how Oregon would be
2016:
PRES-
18-29: Sample size too small
30-44: Clinton 51-40
45-64: Clinton 50-42
65+: Clinton 46-45
For 18-29's, we can see that the 18-44 vote was Clinton +21 and 18-29's were only 3/8 of that group. With 30-44's being only Clinton +11, you are probably looking at a massive Clinton win in 18-29's. But, they might not have gotten enough to be confident in that in their sample, so take that with a grain of salt.
For Senate, all age groups were strongly Democratic, but 45-64's were actually the least Democratic. That age cohort (particularly the older half of it) may have been liberal at one point, but it switched sides. Whether today's young voters do so remains to be seen.
For reference, nationally, Clinton won the 18-29 vote by 19, but House Republicans were more competitive with it, only losing by 10. Trump won white 18-29's by 4, but House Republicans won them by 10. Possibly underreported was that House Republicans did better with young minorities than with old minorities, winning 15% of black 18-29's (vs. 10% of the overall black vote) and 31% of Hispanic 18-29's (in line with Hispanics under 65, but 65+ Hispanics are far more Democrat).
I still can't believe more people did write ins on Oregon than votes for stein
