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.

Map

Anderson	Martin	32.1%
	Lee	65.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Bedford	Martin	18.3%
	Lee	79.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Benton	Martin	18.4%
	Lee	79.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Bledsoe	Martin	12.3%
	Lee	86.1%
		0.0%
	Other	1.7%

Blount	Martin	23.5%
	Lee	74.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Bradley	Martin	16.3%
	Lee	82.0%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Campbell	Martin	15.9%
	Lee	82.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Cannon	Martin	17.5%
	Lee	80.7%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Carroll	Martin	17.7%
	Lee	80.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Carter	Martin	17.8%
	Lee	80.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Cheatham	Martin	26.9%
	Lee	71.3%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Chester	Martin	13.8%
	Lee	83.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Claiborne	Martin	14.2%
	Lee	84.0%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Clay	Martin	16.9%
	Lee	80.0%
		0.0%
	Other	3.0%

Cocke	Martin	15.9%
	Lee	81.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.9%

Coffee	Martin	20.6%
	Lee	77.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Crockett	Martin	16.2%
	Lee	82.3%
		0.0%
	Other	1.5%

Cumberland	Martin	16.2%
	Lee	82.4%
		0.0%
	Other	1.5%

Davidson	Martin	63.4%
	Lee	34.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Decatur	Martin	17.7%
	Lee	80.6%
		0.0%
	Other	1.6%

DeKalb	Martin	17.7%
	Lee	80.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Dickson	Martin	24.1%
	Lee	73.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Dyer	Martin	16.8%
	Lee	80.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Fayette	Martin	22.4%
	Lee	75.9%
		0.0%
	Other	1.6%

Fentress	Martin	11.1%
	Lee	86.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Franklin	Martin	22.9%
	Lee	75.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Gibson	Martin	21.2%
	Lee	76.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Giles	Martin	20.7%
	Lee	76.2%
		0.0%
	Other	3.1%

Grainger	Martin	13.1%
	Lee	85.3%
		0.0%
	Other	1.6%

Greene	Martin	17.8%
	Lee	79.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.9%

Grundy	Martin	15.9%
	Lee	80.8%
		0.0%
	Other	3.3%

Hamblen	Martin	19.0%
	Lee	78.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Hamilton	Martin	38.5%
	Lee	60.0%
		0.0%
	Other	1.5%

Hancock	Martin	12.6%
	Lee	84.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.8%

Hardeman	Martin	35.5%
	Lee	62.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Hardin	Martin	12.4%
	Lee	85.9%
		0.0%
	Other	1.6%

Hawkins	Martin	15.6%
	Lee	82.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Haywood	Martin	47.3%
	Lee	51.1%
		0.0%
	Other	1.6%

Henderson	Martin	12.7%
	Lee	85.6%
		0.0%
	Other	1.7%

Henry	Martin	18.9%
	Lee	78.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Hickman	Martin	19.4%
	Lee	78.8%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Houston	Martin	23.0%
	Lee	74.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

Humphreys	Martin	22.9%
	Lee	74.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.5%

Jackson	Martin	20.0%
	Lee	75.8%
		0.0%
	Other	4.2%

Jefferson	Martin	15.9%
	Lee	81.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Johnson	Martin	13.3%
	Lee	85.1%
		0.0%
	Other	1.7%

Knox	Martin	38.3%
	Lee	59.9%
		0.0%
	Other	1.7%

Lake	Martin	17.7%
	Lee	78.7%
		0.0%
	Other	3.6%

Lauderdale	Martin	27.6%
	Lee	69.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Lawrence	Martin	15.3%
	Lee	82.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

Lewis	Martin	18.0%
	Lee	80.1%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Lincoln	Martin	15.5%
	Lee	81.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

Loudon	Martin	19.4%
	Lee	78.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

McMinn	Martin	14.4%
	Lee	80.3%
		0.0%
	Other	5.3%

McNairy	Martin	14.7%
	Lee	83.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Macon	Martin	12.0%
	Lee	85.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.8%

Madison	Martin	34.2%
	Lee	63.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Marion	Martin	20.9%
	Lee	77.2%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Marshall	Martin	21.0%
	Lee	76.0%
		0.0%
	Other	3.0%

Maury	Martin	25.8%
	Lee	72.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Meigs	Martin	14.9%
	Lee	82.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.9%

Monroe	Martin	14.7%
	Lee	82.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Montgomery	Martin	36.4%
	Lee	60.2%
		0.0%
	Other	3.4%

Moore	Martin	14.6%
	Lee	83.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Morgan	Martin	13.6%
	Lee	84.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Obion	Martin	15.1%
	Lee	82.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Overton	Martin	18.7%
	Lee	78.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.8%

Perry	Martin	17.6%
	Lee	80.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Pickett	Martin	16.1%
	Lee	80.1%
		0.0%
	Other	3.8%

Polk	Martin	14.8%
	Lee	83.3%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Putnam	Martin	24.8%
	Lee	72.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

Rhea	Martin	13.4%
	Lee	85.1%
		0.0%
	Other	1.5%

Roane	Martin	21.1%
	Lee	75.2%
		0.0%
	Other	3.6%

Robertson	Martin	21.9%
	Lee	76.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Rutherford	Martin	35.9%
	Lee	62.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Scott	Martin	10.2%
	Lee	87.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Sequatchie	Martin	13.9%
	Lee	83.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Sevier	Martin	16.8%
	Lee	80.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.9%

Shelby	Martin	54.5%
	Lee	43.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Smith	Martin	17.5%
	Lee	79.5%
		0.0%
	Other	3.0%

Stewart	Martin	17.8%
	Lee	79.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

Sullivan	Martin	20.8%
	Lee	77.9%
		0.0%
	Other	1.3%

Sumner	Martin	26.1%
	Lee	71.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Tipton	Martin	20.6%
	Lee	76.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

Trousdale	Martin	20.9%
	Lee	77.4%
		0.0%
	Other	1.7%

Unicoi	Martin	17.3%
	Lee	80.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Union	Martin	15.0%
	Lee	82.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Van Buren	Martin	14.7%
	Lee	82.3%
		0.0%
	Other	3.0%

Warren	Martin	22.2%
	Lee	75.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Washington	Martin	28.7%
	Lee	69.4%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Wayne	Martin	11.1%
	Lee	86.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Weakley	Martin	18.3%
	Lee	78.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

White	Martin	15.4%
	Lee	82.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Williamson	Martin	30.6%
	Lee	68.1%
		0.0%
	Other	1.4%

Wilson	Martin	27.4%
	Lee	70.7%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

National DataGraph for 2022 - Tennessee Results for 2022

Login

Terms of Use - DCMA Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

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