One the the biggest obstacles facing those who look for to understand U.S. Vote is establishing precise portrait that the American electorate and also the choices made by different kinds the voters. Obtaining precise data ~ above how world voted is difficult for a number of reasons.

You are watching: How many voted for trump in 2016

Surveys conducted before an election deserve to overstate – or understate – the likelihood of some voters to vote. Depending on when a inspection is conducted, voters might readjust their preferences prior to Election Day. Surveys conducted after one election have the right to be influenced by errors stemming from respondents’ recall, either for whom lock voted because that or even if it is they voted in ~ all. Even the special surveys conducted by major news establishments on choice Day – the “exit polls” – face difficulties from refusals come participate and from the reality that a sizable decimal of voter actually vote before Election Day and must it is in interviewed using typical surveys beforehand.

This report introduce a new approach because that looking in ~ the electorate in the 2016 basic election: corresponding members the Pew research study Center’s country representative American patterns Panel come voter papers to develop a dataset of showed voters.

See also: A demographic Profile the 2018 Midterm Voters

The evaluation in this report provides post-election inspection reports the 2016 vote preferences (conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 12, 2016) among those who were figured out as having voted using main voting records. This voter record records become obtainable in the month after the election. (For more details, view “Methodology.”) among these confirmed voters, the in its entirety vote choice mirrors the choice results very closely: 48% report voting for Hillary Clinton and 45% for Donald Trump; by comparison, the official national vote tally to be 48% because that Clinton, 46% because that Trump.

This data resource allows researchers to take a in-depth look at the voting preferences of Americans throughout a selection of demographic traits and characteristics. The joins resources already accessible – consisting of the nationwide Election Pool departure polls, the American nationwide Election Studies and the Current population Survey’s Voting and Registration supplement – in really hopes of help researchers proceed to filter their understanding of the 2016 election and also electorate, and also address complicated questions such as the role of race and education in 2016 candidate preferences.

It reaffirms countless of the an essential findings about how various groups voted – and also the ingredient of the electorate – that emerged from post-election analyses based on other surveys. Continuous with various other analyses and also past elections, race was strongly associated with voting choice in 2016. However there room some differences as well. For instance, the large educational divisions among white voters watched in other surveys are even an ext striking in this data.

Among validated voter in 2016, broad gap amongst whites by education

Overall, whites through a four-year college level or an ext education made up 30% of all validated voters. Amongst these voters, far much more (55%) claimed they voted because that Clinton than for trump (38%). Amongst the lot larger team of white voter who had not completed university (44% of every voters), Trump winner by more than two-to-one (64% to 28%).

There also were large differences in voter choices by gender, age and also marital status. Females were 13 portion points an ext likely than males to have actually voted because that Clinton (54% among women, 41% among men). The gender void was particularly big among validated voter younger 보다 50. In this group, 63% of women claimed they voted for Clinton, compared with simply 43% that men. Amongst voters eras 50 and older, the gender void in assistance for Clinton was much narrower (48% vs. 40%).

About fifty percent (52%) the validated voter were married; amongst them, Trump had actually a 55% to 39% majority. Amongst unmarried voters, Clinton led by a comparable margin (58% to 34%).

Just 13% the validated voter in 2016 were younger 보다 30. Voters in this period group reported voting for Clinton end Trump by a margin that 58% to 28%, through 14% supporting one of the third-party candidates. Among voters eras 30 come 49, 51% supported Clinton and 40% favored Trump. Trump had an advantage among 50- to 64-year-old voters (51% to 45%) and those 65 and older (53% to 44%).

For a detailed breakdown of the composition of the 2016 electorate and voting preferences amongst a wide variety of subgroups of voters, check out Appendix. For the survey methodology and details on how survey respondents were matched to voter records, check out “Methodology.”

2016 poll by party and ideology

Voter selection and party affiliation were practically synonymous. Republican validated voters reported choosing Trump by a margin of 92% come 4%, if Democrats supported Clinton through 94% to 5%. The approximately one-third (34%) of the electorate who figured out as elevation or with another party separated their votes about evenly (43% Trump, 42% Clinton).

Similarly, voting to be strongly correlated with ideology system consistency, based upon a scale composed of 10 political values – consisting of opinions on race, homosexuality, the environment, international policy and also the social safety and security net. Respondents are inserted into five categories ranging from “consistently conservative” come “consistently liberal.” (For more, check out “The Partisan division on Political values Grows even Wider.”)

Virtually every validated voters with repeatedly liberal worths voted for Clinton over Trump (95% to 2%), while practically all those with repetitively conservative worths went for Trump (98% to much less than 1% for Clinton). Those who organized conservative views on many political values (“mostly conservative”) favored trump by 87% come 7%, while Clinton received the support of somewhat fewer amongst those that were “mostly liberal” (78%-13%). Amongst the virtually one-third of voter whose ideological profile to be mixed, the vote was split (48% Trump, 42% Clinton).

Religious affiliation and also attendance

As in previous elections, voter in 2016 to be sharply split along religious lines. Protestants made up about half of the electorate and also reported voting because that Trump end Clinton through a 56% to 39% margin. Catholics were an ext evenly divided; 52% reported voting because that Trump, when 44% said they donate Clinton. Conversely, a solid majority of the religiously unaffiliated – atheists, agnostics and those who said their religion was “nothing in particular” – stated they voted for Clinton (65%) end Trump (24%).

Within the protestant tradition, voters were separated by race and also evangelicalism. White evangelical Protestants, who comprised one the end of every 5 voters, consistently have actually been among the strongest supporters that Republican candidates and also supported trump card by a 77% to 16% margin.

This is nearly identical come the 78% come 16% benefit that Mitt Romney organized over Barack Obama among white evangelicals in Pew Research facility polling on the night of the 2012 presidential election.

Among white mainline Protestants (15% of voter overall) 57% said they voted because that Trump and also 37% reported voting because that Clinton. Clinton won overwhelmingly among black Protestants (96% vs. 3% for Trump).

White non-Hispanic Catholics sustained Trump by a ratio of around two-to-one (64% come 31%), while hispanic Catholics favored Clinton by an even larger 78% come 19% margin.

Among all voters, those who reported attending services at least weekly favored trumped by a margin of 58% to 36%; the margin was similar among those who stated they attended once or twice a month (60% come 38%). Those who reported attending solutions a few times a year or seldom were divided; 51% supported Clinton and 42% supported Trump. Amongst the practically one-quarter of voter (23%) who claimed they never attend religious services, Clinton led trumped by 61% to 3o%.

Demographic and political profiles of Clinton and Trump voters

As the sample of the votes implies, the coalitions that sustained the two major party nominees were an extremely different demographically. These distinctions mirror the broad changes in the compositions the the 2 parties: The Republican and also Democratic coalitions are an ext dissimilar demographically than at any suggest in the previous two decades.

In 2016, a 61% bulk of those who stated they voted because that Clinton were women, if Trump voter were more evenly divided in between men and women. White skin - man constituted almost nine-in-ten (88%) of Trump’s supporters, compared with a smaller majority (60%) who voted for Clinton. Clinton’s voters additionally were younger 보다 Trump’s on mean (48% were younger 보다 50, contrasted with 35% because that Trump).


Among Clinton voters, 43% to be college graduates, compared with 29% of trump voters. And also while non-college whites consisted of a bulk of Trump’s voter (63%), they made up only around a 4 minutes 1 of Clinton’s (26%).

About a third of Clinton voters (32%) stayed in urban areas, versus simply 12% amongst Trump voters. By contrast, 35% of trumped voters claimed they to be from a landscape area; among Clinton voters, 19% lived in a countryside community.

The spiritual profile of the 2 candidates’ voters additionally differed considerably. About a 3rd of Clinton voters (35%) to be religiously unaffiliated, together were just 14% of trump card voters. White evangelical voters comprised a much higher share the Trump’s voters (34%) 보다 Clinton’s (7%). One-in-five Trump voter (20%) were white non-Hispanic Catholics, compared with just 9% that Clinton voters. And also black Protestants were 14% of Clintons supporters, while virtually no black Protestants in the survey reported voting because that Trump.

How go 2016 voters and nonvoters compare?

The data also provide a file of voting-eligible nonvoters. Four-in-ten Americans that were eligible to poll did not carry out so in 2016. There space striking demographic differences between voters and also nonvoters, and far-ranging political distinctions as well. Contrasted with validated voters, nonvoters were an ext likely to it is in younger, less educated, much less affluent and also nonwhite. And also nonvoters were much an ext Democratic.

Among members of the panel that were categorized as nonvoters, 37% express a choice for Hillary Clinton, 30% for Donald Trump and also 9% because that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein; 14% preferred another candidate or declined to express a preference. Party affiliation amongst nonvoters skewed even much more Democratic than did candidate preferences. Democrats and also Democratic-leaning independents made up a 55% bulk of nonvoters; about four-in-ten (41%) nonvoters were Republicans and Republican leaners. Voters were split nearly evenly in between Democrats and also Democratic leaners (51%) and Republicans and also Republican leaners (48%).

While nonvoters were less likely than voters to align through the GOP, the picture was much less clear through respect come ideology. Fan in part to the propensity of nonvoters to it is in politically disengaged more generally, there are far more nonvoters than voters who loss into the “mixed” classification on the ideological consistency scale. Among nonvoters who host a collection of political values with a distinctive ideological orientation, those with usually liberal worths (30% of all nonvoters) significantly outnumbered those with normally conservative worths (18%).

Voters to be much an ext highly educated 보다 nonvoters. Simply 16% the nonvoters were college graduates, compared with 37% of voters. Adult with only a high school education and learning constituted half (51%) that nonvoters, contrasted with 30% among voters. White skin - man without a university degree consisted of 43% the nonvoters, around the same as among voters (44%). However nonwhites there is no a college degree were far much more numerous among nonvoters (at 42%) than they were amongst voters (19%).

There likewise were large income differences in between voters and also nonvoters. An ext than half (56%) that nonvoters reported annual family incomes under $30,000. Amongst voters, just 28% fell into this earnings category.

CORRECTION (October 3, 2019): The message of the report has actually been edited to correct an error in the reported vote an option of non-Hispanic white mainline Protestants, 57% of whom voted for Donald trump card vs. 37% because that Hillary Clinton. The graphics and tables were unaffected by this error.

See more: How Long Do Apples Last In The Refrigerator, How Long Do Apples Last

CORRECTION: (August 9, 2018): In the graph “Among validated voter in 2016, wide gap amongst whites by education,” the “share the electorate” column has been edited to reflect update percentages for sex by gyeongju to correct because that a data tabulation error. Transforms did not affect the report’s substantive findings. The linked detailed tables have additionally been update accordingly.