1. Who Turned Out and What It Meant A Profile of the 2016 Electoratejj
The PowerPoint and a link to the recording of the webinar will be distributed in a follow up

3. Today’s presenters Who Dorian Caal Abby Kiesa Michael McDonald
Director of Civic Engagement Research at NALEO Educational Fund
Abby Kiesa
Director of Impact at CIRCLE
Michael McDonald
Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida
Who

4. agenda National Voter Turnout Exit Poll Data The Youth Vote
The Latino Vote
Questions/Discussion
Takeaways
Agenda

5. www.electproject.org ● @ElectProject
2016 Voter Participation
Michael McDonald
University of Florida
11/12/2018

6. Presidential Turnout Rates for Eligible Voters, 1948-2016

7. Preliminary 2016 State Turnout Rates (High = Minnesota 74%, Low = Hawaii 43%)

8. Questions

9. Exit poll terms
National Election Exit Poll 2016: National survey conducted for national election by Edison Research for major media outlets, CNN, networks, New York Times, etc.
Share of the Vote: The share of the electorate that voted in the election by demographic or category surveyed
Voter turnout: The % of eligible voters or, in many cases, registered voters that voted.
Terms

10. National election exit poll 2016
Share of Vote D R
Men
48%
41%
53%
Women
52%
54%
42%
Compared to 2012 –
Male votes for Democrat fell 4 points
Party vote by women was the same
More didn’t for president or voted 3rd party
Gender

12. Youth made up a larger proportion of the 2016 electorate (19% v 15%)
Young people, ages 18-29, are now a larger group of eligible voters than seniors
You could also note that youth are estimated to have made a larger portion of the 2016 electorate than those % vs. 15%.
Youth made up a larger proportion of the 2016 electorate (19% v 15%)

16. While young voters supported Hillary Clinton by a wide margin, there were big differences depending on their race and ethnicity, as well as their state. Overall, young people voted drastically differently than older voters, a trend that some will no doubt compare to the Brexit vote earlier this year.
In 2016, young voters were a substantial voting bloc and they influenced the outcome, although a majority of them ended up on the losing side of the presidential race.
Young voters supported Hillary Clinton more than any other age group did. However, they are a heterogeneous generation, and their choices in 2016 differed greatly depending on their own race, gender and where they live, among other factors.

17. Youth Affect Presidential Competitiveness in Key States
Our analysis of margin of victory in relation to estimated youth turnout and choice revealed that young voters played an important role in keeping some key races very close. If it were not for young voters’ support for Hillary Clinton, electoral college votes in Michigan, New Hampshire, and Nevada would have gone more decisively to Donald Trump. Michigan and New Hampshire are currently too close to call in part because of the edge that young voters gave Clinton in those states.
In Nevada, Hillary Clinton won by an estimated 26,000 votes. Youth decisively favored Clinton in Nevada (52% to 35%), and this resulted in a net gain of 35,000 votes for Clinton. If young people had voted in equal number for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Clinton’s victory would have been by an even narrower margin of less than 10,000 votes.
In Michigan, which has not been called yet, young voters’ decisive support has played a major role in keeping the race close. Currently, Donald Trump is leading Hillary Clinton by about 12,000 votes, but youth favored Hillary Clinton by over 232,000 votes (57% to 34%). If young voters’ support for her was even slightly less decisive, Donald Trump would have won the state handily.
In New Hampshire, where the vote is also too close to call with just about 1,400 votes separating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, young voters also gave the Democratic candidate a boost. Youth gave Clinton a net of 12,000 by favoring her 49% to 41%, and if young people had chosen instead to split their votes equally between Trump and Clinton, she would currently be behind by almost 5,000 votes. In New Hampshire, young voters were the only group that gave a significant edge to Clinton.

18. Questions Youth Affect Presidential Competitiveness in Key States
Our analysis of margin of victory in relation to estimated youth turnout and choice revealed that young voters played an important role in keeping some key races very close. If it were not for young voters’ support for Hillary Clinton, electoral college votes in Michigan, New Hampshire, and Nevada would have gone more decisively to Donald Trump. Michigan and New Hampshire are currently too close to call in part because of the edge that young voters gave Clinton in those states.
In Nevada, Hillary Clinton won by an estimated 26,000 votes. Youth decisively favored Clinton in Nevada (52% to 35%), and this resulted in a net gain of 35,000 votes for Clinton. If young people had voted in equal number for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Clinton’s victory would have been by an even narrower margin of less than 10,000 votes.
In Michigan, which has not been called yet, young voters’ decisive support has played a major role in keeping the race close. Currently, Donald Trump is leading Hillary Clinton by about 12,000 votes, but youth favored Hillary Clinton by over 232,000 votes (57% to 34%). If young voters’ support for her was even slightly less decisive, Donald Trump would have won the state handily.
In New Hampshire, where the vote is also too close to call with just about 1,400 votes separating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, young voters also gave the Democratic candidate a boost. Youth gave Clinton a net of 12,000 by favoring her 49% to 41%, and if young people had chosen instead to split their votes equally between Trump and Clinton, she would currently be behind by almost 5,000 votes. In New Hampshire, young voters were the only group that gave a significant edge to Clinton.

19. The Latino Vote:
An Overview
November 15, 2016

20. NALEO Educational Fund
Constituency
Latino elected and appointed officials
Latino community
NALEO Ed Fund vs. NALEO
Non-Partisan (501(c)3)
The nation’s leading 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that facilitates full Latino participation in the American political process, from citizenship to public service.
Established in 1981, NALEO Educational Fund is governed by a 15-member Board of Directors.
NALEO EDUCATIONAL FUND
CHAIR
Hon. Pauline Medrano
Dallas Country Treasurer
Dallas, Texas

21. NALEO Educational Fund achieves its mission through three major strategies:
Policy, Research & Advocacy
Civic Engagement
Constituency Services

22. Record Latino turnout of 9.7 million. A 28% increase over 2004.
Latino Voter Impact in 2008
Record Latino turnout of 9.7 million. A 28% increase over 2004.
SOURCE: NALEO EDUCATIONAL FUND

23. Latino Voter Impact in 2012
Approximately 11.2 million Latinos voted in the 2012 election, comprising 8.4% of the nation’s electorate. This was a 15% increase from the 2008 election.

24. NALEO EDUCATIONAL FUND ESTIMATE
At least 16.2 million Latinos were registered to vote for Election 2016

25. More than 13.1 million Latinos voted in the Election 2016
NALEO EDUCATIONAL FUND PROJECTIONS
More than 13.1 million Latinos voted in the Election 2016
We derived our projection of the Latino vote in Election 2016 by using a statistical modeling approach that takes into account trends in Latino voter turnout in the last four Presidential election cycles. We used data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. Because the projection is based on past voting trends, it does not take into account the potential increase or decrease in Latino turnout that could result from the growth in Latino naturalizations, the saliency of various issues in the public dialogue during the 2016 Presidential contests, more robust voter engagement efforts, restrictive voter registration and voting laws, or other factors.
This projection is essentially a “floor,” – of particular importance will be the extent to which candidates, parties, and the philanthropic community fund effective Latino voter engagement. We note that in 2014, Latino Decisions conducted an election-eve poll of Latino voters, and less than half – 41% - indicated that a campaign, political party or community organization had contacted them in the few months before the election to register or to vote.
This represents a 35% increase in turnout since Election 2008, the last Presidential contest involving two non-incumbents

26. Presidential Vote
If the Presidential election was held today would you vote for?
State Results: NALEO/LD Latino Battleground State Surveys October 2016 (N=400 per state; MoE +/-4.9% per state)
National results: NALEO/Telemundo/LD National Latino Tracking Poll (N=500) October 2016

27. House Vote
Thinking about the upcoming Congressional elections for U.S. House of Representatives do you plan to vote for….
State Results: NALEO/LD Latino Battleground State Surveys October 2016 (N=400 per state; MoE +/-4.9% per state)
National results: NALEO/Telemundo/LD National Latino Tracking Poll (N=500) October 2016

28. Senate Vote
State Results: NALEO/LD Latino Battleground State Surveys October 2016 (N=400 per state; MoE +/-4.9% per state)

29. Milestone Victories for Latino Candidates
U.S. Senate
Catherine Cortez Masto (D)
Latinos in Nevada help elect first Latina to U.S. Senate
U.S. House Of Representatives
NY-13 Adriano Espaillat (D)
Latinos in New York help elect first Dominican-American to U.S. House Of Representatives
FL-9 Darren Soto (D)
Latinos in Florida help elect first Puerto Rican to serve Florida to the U.S. House Of Representatives

30. Thank you. Dorian Caal Director of Civic Engagement Research

31. Questions

32. VEP in Swing States = 68,700,000 (30.3%)
VEP in Other States = 158,300,000 (69.7%)

33. Three quarters (76%) of the Latino VEP NV CO AZ FL
Three quarters (76%) of the Latino VEP
lives outside “battleground” states

34. National election exit poll 2016:
Share of Vote   D  R
White
70%
37%
58%
Black
12%
88% 8%
AAPI 4%
65%
29%
Other 3%
56%
Compared to 2012 –
The share of vote by AAPI vote and “other ethnicity” both rose one point.
An increase representing 2.7 million more voters
Race/
Ethnicity

35. Questions

36. TAKEAWAYS

38. info@nonprofitvote.org 617.357.VOTE (8683) www.nonprofitvote.org
2464 Massachusetts Ave.
Suite 210
Cambridge, MA 02140 38