Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections - Data Graphs

Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.

Data for this Contest was Contributed by on 2007-04-06

Map

Map

Autauga	Whigham	23.8%
	Pryor	74.2%
	Other	2.0%

Baldwin	Whigham	20.4%
	Pryor	76.5%
	Other	3.1%

Barbour	Whigham	65.5%
	Pryor	32.6%
	Other	2.0%

Bibb	Whigham	40.2%
	Pryor	57.6%
	Other	2.1%

Blount	Whigham	25.3%
	Pryor	71.7%
	Other	3.0%

Bullock	Whigham	77.0%
	Pryor	21.3%
	Other	1.7%

Butler	Whigham	41.5%
	Pryor	56.9%
	Other	1.7%

Calhoun	Whigham	36.1%
	Pryor	61.3%
	Other	2.6%

Chambers	Whigham	45.3%
	Pryor	52.8%
	Other	1.9%

Cherokee	Whigham	46.4%
	Pryor	50.1%
	Other	3.6%

Chilton	Whigham	28.3%
	Pryor	69.5%
	Other	2.2%

Choctaw	Whigham	51.0%
	Pryor	47.6%
	Other	1.4%

Clarke	Whigham	42.9%
	Pryor	55.8%
	Other	1.3%

Clay	Whigham	30.9%
	Pryor	66.7%
	Other	2.4%

Cleburne	Whigham	34.2%
	Pryor	61.5%
	Other	4.2%

Coffee	Whigham	32.6%
	Pryor	65.6%
	Other	1.8%

Colbert	Whigham	49.4%
	Pryor	48.6%
	Other	1.9%

Conecuh	Whigham	50.9%
	Pryor	47.0%
	Other	2.0%

Coosa	Whigham	46.7%
	Pryor	50.8%
	Other	2.5%

Covington	Whigham	31.6%
	Pryor	66.6%
	Other	1.8%

Crenshaw	Whigham	34.3%
	Pryor	64.0%
	Other	1.7%

Cullman	Whigham	30.5%
	Pryor	66.4%
	Other	3.1%

Dale	Whigham	34.2%
	Pryor	63.5%
	Other	2.4%

Dallas	Whigham	57.6%
	Pryor	40.7%
	Other	1.7%

DeKalb	Whigham	36.2%
	Pryor	61.8%
	Other	2.0%

Elmore	Whigham	22.3%
	Pryor	75.5%
	Other	2.2%

Escambia	Whigham	37.2%
	Pryor	61.1%
	Other	1.7%

Etowah	Whigham	40.3%
	Pryor	57.3%
	Other	2.4%

Fayette	Whigham	40.5%
	Pryor	56.6%
	Other	2.9%

Franklin	Whigham	46.3%
	Pryor	51.5%
	Other	2.2%

Geneva	Whigham	28.6%
	Pryor	69.2%
	Other	2.2%

Greene	Whigham	76.8%
	Pryor	21.6%
	Other	1.6%

Hale	Whigham	59.4%
	Pryor	39.3%
	Other	1.3%

Henry	Whigham	44.5%
	Pryor	53.6%
	Other	1.9%

Houston	Whigham	28.6%
	Pryor	69.7%
	Other	1.7%

Jackson	Whigham	47.9%
	Pryor	49.4%
	Other	2.8%

Jefferson	Whigham	45.0%
	Pryor	52.9%
	Other	2.1%

Lamar	Whigham	42.2%
	Pryor	55.7%
	Other	2.1%

Lauderdale	Whigham	40.5%
	Pryor	57.2%
	Other	2.3%

Lawrence	Whigham	51.0%
	Pryor	46.9%
	Other	2.2%

Lee	Whigham	35.7%
	Pryor	61.3%
	Other	3.0%

Limestone	Whigham	36.6%
	Pryor	60.9%
	Other	2.5%

Lowndes	Whigham	63.5%
	Pryor	34.2%
	Other	2.4%

Macon	Whigham	80.0%
	Pryor	18.1%
	Other	1.9%

Madison	Whigham	35.7%
	Pryor	60.9%
	Other	3.4%

Marengo	Whigham	51.5%
	Pryor	47.2%
	Other	1.4%

Marion	Whigham	40.8%
	Pryor	56.4%
	Other	2.8%

Marshall	Whigham	31.2%
	Pryor	65.9%
	Other	2.9%

Mobile	Whigham	37.4%
	Pryor	60.2%
	Other	2.4%

Monroe	Whigham	41.3%
	Pryor	57.0%
	Other	1.7%

Montgomery	Whigham	44.1%
	Pryor	54.5%
	Other	1.5%

Morgan	Whigham	33.5%
	Pryor	64.2%
	Other	2.4%

Perry	Whigham	70.7%
	Pryor	27.9%
	Other	1.3%

Pickens	Whigham	48.9%
	Pryor	49.8%
	Other	1.4%

Pike	Whigham	42.0%
	Pryor	56.8%
	Other	1.2%

Randolph	Whigham	41.0%
	Pryor	56.3%
	Other	2.7%

Russell	Whigham	57.1%
	Pryor	40.3%
	Other	2.6%

St. Clair	Whigham	18.1%
	Pryor	79.6%
	Other	2.3%

Shelby	Whigham	25.4%
	Pryor	71.7%
	Other	2.9%

Sumter	Whigham	72.7%
	Pryor	25.9%
	Other	1.4%

Talladega	Whigham	42.9%
	Pryor	55.3%
	Other	1.7%

Tallapoosa	Whigham	34.1%
	Pryor	63.6%
	Other	2.3%

Tuscaloosa	Whigham	39.8%
	Pryor	58.1%
	Other	2.1%

Walker	Whigham	43.7%
	Pryor	53.9%
	Other	2.4%

Washington	Whigham	47.1%
	Pryor	50.8%
	Other	2.2%

Wilcox	Whigham	64.4%
	Pryor	33.7%
	Other	1.8%

Winston	Whigham	27.2%
	Pryor	70.1%
	Other	2.7%

National DataGraph for 2002 - Alabama Results for 2002

Login

Terms of Use - DCMA Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC 2019 All Rights Reserved