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 2009-03-25

Map

Map

Alamance	Edmisten	38.3%
	Martin	61.0%
	Other	0.6%

Alexander	Edmisten	38.8%
	Martin	61.2%
	Other	0.0%

Alleghany	Edmisten	52.4%
	Martin	47.5%
	Other	0.1%

Anson	Edmisten	67.7%
	Martin	32.1%
	Other	0.2%

Ashe	Edmisten	49.5%
	Martin	50.3%
	Other	0.1%

Avery	Edmisten	32.7%
	Martin	67.0%
	Other	0.3%

Beaufort	Edmisten	51.4%
	Martin	48.4%
	Other	0.1%

Bertie	Edmisten	68.8%
	Martin	30.0%
	Other	1.2%

Bladen	Edmisten	57.8%
	Martin	41.5%
	Other	0.8%

Brunswick	Edmisten	48.8%
	Martin	50.8%
	Other	0.3%

Buncombe	Edmisten	46.9%
	Martin	52.6%
	Other	0.5%

Burke	Edmisten	43.7%
	Martin	56.2%
	Other	0.1%

Cabarrus	Edmisten	34.1%
	Martin	65.8%
	Other	0.2%

Caldwell	Edmisten	39.1%
	Martin	60.7%
	Other	0.2%

Camden	Edmisten	60.0%
	Martin	39.8%
	Other	0.2%

Carteret	Edmisten	47.6%
	Martin	52.2%
	Other	0.2%

Caswell	Edmisten	63.7%
	Martin	36.1%
	Other	0.2%

Catawba	Edmisten	34.3%
	Martin	65.6%
	Other	0.2%

Chatham	Edmisten	54.5%
	Martin	45.2%
	Other	0.3%

Cherokee	Edmisten	40.6%
	Martin	58.9%
	Other	0.6%

Chowan	Edmisten	54.6%
	Martin	43.8%
	Other	1.5%

Clay	Edmisten	40.9%
	Martin	58.9%
	Other	0.2%

Cleveland	Edmisten	46.4%
	Martin	53.4%
	Other	0.1%

Columbus	Edmisten	58.2%
	Martin	41.5%
	Other	0.3%

Craven	Edmisten	50.8%
	Martin	48.7%
	Other	0.5%

Cumberland	Edmisten	52.6%
	Martin	47.1%
	Other	0.3%

Currituck	Edmisten	55.8%
	Martin	44.1%
	Other	0.1%

Dare	Edmisten	44.6%
	Martin	54.9%
	Other	0.5%

Davidson	Edmisten	36.2%
	Martin	63.6%
	Other	0.2%

Davie	Edmisten	34.8%
	Martin	65.1%
	Other	0.1%

Duplin	Edmisten	57.8%
	Martin	42.2%
	Other	0.0%

Durham	Edmisten	56.1%
	Martin	43.2%
	Other	0.7%

Edgecombe	Edmisten	61.5%
	Martin	38.3%
	Other	0.2%

Forsyth	Edmisten	46.4%
	Martin	53.4%
	Other	0.2%

Franklin	Edmisten	56.2%
	Martin	43.5%
	Other	0.3%

Gaston	Edmisten	34.2%
	Martin	65.6%
	Other	0.2%

Gates	Edmisten	73.4%
	Martin	26.5%
	Other	0.1%

Graham	Edmisten	44.8%
	Martin	55.0%
	Other	0.1%

Granville	Edmisten	57.4%
	Martin	42.5%
	Other	0.1%

Greene	Edmisten	64.9%
	Martin	35.1%
	Other	0.1%

Guilford	Edmisten	42.1%
	Martin	57.7%
	Other	0.2%

Halifax	Edmisten	58.3%
	Martin	41.5%
	Other	0.2%

Harnett	Edmisten	50.5%
	Martin	49.2%
	Other	0.2%

Haywood	Edmisten	51.8%
	Martin	47.9%
	Other	0.3%

Henderson	Edmisten	32.5%
	Martin	67.3%
	Other	0.2%

Hertford	Edmisten	67.7%
	Martin	30.8%
	Other	1.5%

Hoke	Edmisten	67.3%
	Martin	32.4%
	Other	0.3%

Hyde	Edmisten	62.2%
	Martin	37.7%
	Other	0.1%

Iredell	Edmisten	33.1%
	Martin	66.7%
	Other	0.2%

Jackson	Edmisten	49.5%
	Martin	50.0%
	Other	0.5%

Johnston	Edmisten	43.7%
	Martin	56.1%
	Other	0.2%

Jones	Edmisten	61.9%
	Martin	38.0%
	Other	0.1%

Lee	Edmisten	48.5%
	Martin	51.0%
	Other	0.5%

Lenoir	Edmisten	54.2%
	Martin	45.7%
	Other	0.1%

Lincoln	Edmisten	36.5%
	Martin	63.4%
	Other	0.1%

McDowell	Edmisten	48.2%
	Martin	51.6%
	Other	0.2%

Macon	Edmisten	45.4%
	Martin	54.4%
	Other	0.2%

Madison	Edmisten	53.1%
	Martin	46.4%
	Other	0.5%

Martin	Edmisten	64.5%
	Martin	34.7%
	Other	0.8%

Mecklenburg	Edmisten	33.3%
	Martin	66.3%
	Other	0.4%

Mitchell	Edmisten	26.1%
	Martin	73.7%
	Other	0.2%

Montgomery	Edmisten	50.5%
	Martin	49.4%
	Other	0.1%

Moore	Edmisten	38.3%
	Martin	61.5%
	Other	0.2%

Nash	Edmisten	43.4%
	Martin	56.4%
	Other	0.2%

New Hanover	Edmisten	40.2%
	Martin	59.4%
	Other	0.4%

Northampton	Edmisten	62.7%
	Martin	35.5%
	Other	1.8%

Onslow	Edmisten	46.9%
	Martin	52.8%
	Other	0.3%

Orange	Edmisten	57.4%
	Martin	41.9%
	Other	0.6%

Pamlico	Edmisten	60.4%
	Martin	39.4%
	Other	0.1%

Pasquotank	Edmisten	51.8%
	Martin	46.9%
	Other	1.2%

Pender	Edmisten	55.8%
	Martin	44.1%
	Other	0.0%

Perquimans	Edmisten	59.3%
	Martin	40.5%
	Other	0.2%

Person	Edmisten	48.0%
	Martin	50.8%
	Other	1.2%

Pitt	Edmisten	53.8%
	Martin	45.9%
	Other	0.3%

Polk	Edmisten	42.0%
	Martin	56.3%
	Other	1.8%

Randolph	Edmisten	30.7%
	Martin	69.0%
	Other	0.3%

Richmond	Edmisten	59.1%
	Martin	40.7%
	Other	0.2%

Robeson	Edmisten	65.2%
	Martin	34.2%
	Other	0.6%

Rockingham	Edmisten	46.2%
	Martin	53.5%
	Other	0.3%

Rowan	Edmisten	36.6%
	Martin	63.2%
	Other	0.2%

Rutherford	Edmisten	45.8%
	Martin	54.0%
	Other	0.2%

Sampson	Edmisten	51.7%
	Martin	48.2%
	Other	0.1%

Scotland	Edmisten	59.4%
	Martin	40.1%
	Other	0.5%

Stanly	Edmisten	36.5%
	Martin	63.3%
	Other	0.2%

Stokes	Edmisten	45.5%
	Martin	54.4%
	Other	0.1%

Surry	Edmisten	45.7%
	Martin	53.9%
	Other	0.3%

Swain	Edmisten	54.1%
	Martin	45.6%
	Other	0.3%

Transylvania	Edmisten	42.8%
	Martin	56.9%
	Other	0.3%

Tyrrell	Edmisten	66.5%
	Martin	33.4%
	Other	0.1%

Union	Edmisten	36.5%
	Martin	63.3%
	Other	0.2%

Vance	Edmisten	57.8%
	Martin	41.9%
	Other	0.2%

Wake	Edmisten	45.5%
	Martin	54.1%
	Other	0.5%

Warren	Edmisten	68.5%
	Martin	31.4%
	Other	0.1%

Washington	Edmisten	69.3%
	Martin	30.7%
	Other	0.0%

Watauga	Edmisten	51.6%
	Martin	47.9%
	Other	0.5%

Wayne	Edmisten	45.7%
	Martin	53.7%
	Other	0.6%

Wilkes	Edmisten	39.2%
	Martin	60.7%
	Other	0.1%

Wilson	Edmisten	51.4%
	Martin	47.9%
	Other	0.7%

Yadkin	Edmisten	35.8%
	Martin	64.2%
	Other	0.0%

Yancey	Edmisten	53.3%
	Martin	46.7%
	Other	0.0%

National DataGraph for 1984 - North Carolina Results for 1984

Login

Terms of Use - DCMA Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

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