White 18-29 Map?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Trump won white 18-29s nationally 47-43.  Unfortunately, exit polls don't have age and race combined breakdowns for individual states.  It does tend to be that states like Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina have large age gaps, while states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio have minimal or no age gaps, but that could just be a reflection of high diversity among younger voters in the former grouping of states.

The overall 18-29 map is this:

Or, with filling in the safe states:

A couple interesting antecdotes: NY 18-29s actually voted to the left of CA 18-29s, and Trump won the 18-24 vote in both Wisconsin and Minnesota, perhaps suggesting that they are becoming red states.  Trump also did better with young voters in Florida than in Georgia.

The national map adjusted to a 4-point Trump win (since that's his margin with white 18-29s):

It does figure that his white 18-29 numbers were only marginally better than his 18-29 numbers in very white states and significantly better in heavily minority states, so he probably still won white 18-29s in Texas, for instance.  That map doesn't actually look completely implausible, though Virginia, Nevada, and New Mexico were likely very, very close.  There is also an off chance that McMullin won Utah white 18-29s, as he only lost overall 18-29s by 1 point.  I would also be curious to see about Rhode Island and Delaware, but there aren't exit polls for those, so it's hard to say.

One more map (this one is problematic because not every state has the same white proportion of the population) of the exit polls for 18-29s (C+19 nationally) swung 23 points to the right to reach T+4, the figure we know for white 18-29s:

With the Safe Republican states filled in:

I would certainly flip Georgia on that map, but, beyond that, I don't know.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I'd also flip NM. Probably IL as well.

Trump's gotta tighten the immigration laws and open up the libel laws.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Any more guesses?

[DPKdebator]

RI is probably still Democratic. Outside the Providence area, the state is 93-95% white and Kent was the only county overall to vote for Trump.

[Xing]

Trump almost certainly won 18-29 year old whites in NM, given how much more Republican white voters are there than minorities. I doubt he did in Maine, though, since Maine is overwhelmingly white, and he likely did at least slightly worse among younger voters.

[NOVA Green]

Trump almost certainly won 18-29 year old whites in NM, given how much more Republican white voters are there than minorities. I doubt he did in Maine, though, since Maine is overwhelmingly white, and he likely did at least slightly worse among younger voters.

I think that is certainly a debatable proposition at best for multiple reasons----

1.) Do we consider the Hispano population of New Mexico, the majority of the state's "Latino" population, to be "White", "Latino", "Native American", "African-American","Neither", or "Mixed"?

How does this extremely large population within New Mexico consider themselves?

Really good academic article link below:

http://digest.champlain.edu/vol2_issue2/article2_2_2.html

Exit Polling obviously has many flaws in general, and with self-identification in a state as ethnically complicated as New Mexico, makes it particularly unreliable when it comes to simplistic reductionist concept of "white voters".

2.) Ok--- so in order to test the hypothesis somehow the data would need to sorted and aggregated in a manner where we could control for the "Hispano" population as a variable to look at areas with significant populations of the Hispano population, and contrast with areas with a minimal Hispano population.

The problem is that this itself is virtually impossible, since the population is concentrated throughout virtually the entire state of New Mexico in significant numbers in most counties in the state.

3.) Even if we were to ignore County level results, trying to pull this data into a precinct level model would be extremely tricky as well.

In theory we could perhaps isolate certain precincts based on US Census Tract Blocks or academic studies based upon a regional Spanish dialect, español neomexicano, but even there the data-sets will only focus on a certain proportion of the population.

4.) So, even if we were to hypothetically limit the concept of "white identity" solely to individuals that self-identify based upon Northern European ancestry there is still a major problem....

How to narrow down the 18-29 year old vote within that specific demographic?

College precincts aren't the obvious places to look, since even trying to control for ethnicity, we are really only talking about a fraction of the population?

It does appear, based upon information available that there was a significant shift away from Obama '12 towards 3rd Party voters among the 18-29 age range, and that this shift occurred in both heavily "White" and "Minority" populations, in New Mexico as in many other parts of the country.

5.) I agree with your assessment of Maine, and my suspicion is that even in ME-02, much of the dramatic swing towards Trump actually occurred among Middle-Age and Older Anglo Voters (35+), in a heavily "white" part of the state that has seen a dramatic decline in jobs tied to the paper/pulp industry being shipped overseas to China, just as we have seen in many similar communities in Oregon.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Trump almost certainly won 18-29 year old whites in NM, given how much more Republican white voters are there than minorities. I doubt he did in Maine, though, since Maine is overwhelmingly white, and he likely did at least slightly worse among younger voters.

I think that is certainly a debatable proposition at best for multiple reasons----

1.) Do we consider the Hispano population of New Mexico, the majority of the state's "Latino" population, to be "White", "Latino", "Native American", "African-American","Neither", or "Mixed"?

How does this extremely large population within New Mexico consider themselves?

Really good academic article link below:

http://digest.champlain.edu/vol2_issue2/article2_2_2.html

Exit Polling obviously has many flaws in general, and with self-identification in a state as ethnically complicated as New Mexico, makes it particularly unreliable when it comes to simplistic reductionist concept of "white voters".

2.) Ok--- so in order to test the hypothesis somehow the data would need to sorted and aggregated in a manner where we could control for the "Hispano" population as a variable to look at areas with significant populations of the Hispano population, and contrast with areas with a minimal Hispano population.

The problem is that this itself is virtually impossible, since the population is concentrated throughout virtually the entire state of New Mexico in significant numbers in most counties in the state.

3.) Even if we were to ignore County level results, trying to pull this data into a precinct level model would be extremely tricky as well.

In theory we could perhaps isolate certain precincts based on US Census Tract Blocks or academic studies based upon a regional Spanish dialect, español neomexicano, but even there the data-sets will only focus on a certain proportion of the population.

4.) So, even if we were to hypothetically limit the concept of "white identity" solely to individuals that self-identify based upon Northern European ancestry there is still a major problem....

How to narrow down the 18-29 year old vote within that specific demographic?

College precincts aren't the obvious places to look, since even trying to control for ethnicity, we are really only talking about a fraction of the population?

It does appear, based upon information available that there was a significant shift away from Obama '12 towards 3rd Party voters among the 18-29 age range, and that this shift occurred in both heavily "White" and "Minority" populations, in New Mexico as in many other parts of the country.

5.) I agree with your assessment of Maine, and my suspicion is that even in ME-02, much of the dramatic swing towards Trump actually occurred among Middle-Age and Older Anglo Voters (35+), in a heavily "white" part of the state that has seen a dramatic decline in jobs tied to the paper/pulp industry being shipped overseas to China, just as we have seen in many similar communities in Oregon.

Clinton only won the 18-29 vote in Maine 48-43.  There was no real age gap there.  So, Trump obviously won the overall 18-29 vote in ME-02.  But, since Maine is almost uniformly white, you might be right that Clinton narrowly carried the 18-29 white vote in Maine.

[NOVA Green]

@ ExtremeRepublican....

This is an extremely interesting thread, and thanks for both posting it, as well as an extremely detailed explanation of how the map was generated....

So, I guess part of what I find to be a bit confusing in the logic of the map is, from what I Understand your methodology to be, to use a universal 4% Trump 18-29 win among White voters, and then adjust down to the statewide level....

I agree with your general numbers, presumably based upon exit polling data regarding Trump winning White voters 18-29, and a significant defection to 3rd Party candidates among that Demographic....

Looking at precinct level data in heavily White Oregon, for example, it appears that turnout was significantly lower than in '08/'12 in heavily University precincts, and a major defection towards 3rd Party candidates....

That being said, it seems a bit of a stretch to extrapolate national numbers to NH for example among the 18-29 yr old Demographic.....

I would posit, that Clinton likely won that Demographic in NH, but had a larger decline among Middle-Aged and Older Voters, that creates a distortion when trying to analyze statewide/National swings...

I do agree with your call that NV/VA/CO were likely all very close, but I could easily envision a scenario in all three states where the major White Demographic swing towards Trump, actually occurred among the 45+ population.

Certainly a subject worthy of much further discussion and investigation, for not only historical data analysis, but also for what these trends might mean among this Demographic over the next few election cycles and beyond.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

@ ExtremeRepublican....

This is an extremely interesting thread, and thanks for both posting it, as well as an extremely detailed explanation of how the map was generated....

So, I guess part of what I find to be a bit confusing in the logic of the map is, from what I Understand your methodology to be, to use a universal 4% Trump 18-29 win among White voters, and then adjust down to the statewide level....

I agree with your general numbers, presumably based upon exit polling data regarding Trump winning White voters 18-29, and a significant defection to 3rd Party candidates among that Demographic....

Looking at precinct level data in heavily White Oregon, for example, it appears that turnout was significantly lower than in '08/'12 in heavily University precincts, and a major defection towards 3rd Party candidates....

That being said, it seems a bit of a stretch to extrapolate national numbers to NH for example among the 18-29 yr old Demographic.....

I would posit, that Clinton likely won that Demographic in NH, but had a larger decline among Middle-Aged and Older Voters, that creates a distortion when trying to analyze statewide/National swings...

I do agree with your call that NV/VA/CO were likely all very close, but I could easily envision a scenario in all three states where the major White Demographic swing towards Trump, actually occurred among the 45+ population.

Certainly a subject worthy of much further discussion and investigation, for not only historical data analysis, but also for what these trends might mean among this Demographic over the next few election cycles and beyond.

No, the last map actually has a baseline of the overall young vote, which I just adjust 23 points in Trump's direction (from C+19 (youngs) to T+4 (young whites)).  Now, I actually think your suggestion of adjusting the overall white vote (T+20) 16 points towards Clinton to get the young white vote (T+4) has merit, but it is problematic in a place like Iowa (and other states that genuinely don't have an age gap for whatever reason), where we know that Trump won 18-29s, but that would be listed as Clinton winning 18-29s.  For what it's worth, that map looks like this (again, assuming safe states that weren't exit polled):

One more method that I don't find perfect, but I will show.  This one is basically whether Trump's margin with whites or Clinton's with youngs was bigger:

And, finally, my "best guess map", which is basically which party won each state in at least two of the three methods:

[vote for pedro]

I think you have discovered exposed the problem with assuming a universal swing.  

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I think you have discovered exposed the problem with assuming a universal swing.  

Do you want to make a guess?  I tried a few different methods to estimate the 18-29 white vote, and, I know that none of them are perfect, but I think my last map, which combines all of the methods, is pretty close.  If you want to make a guess, and explain how you got it, go ahead!