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 2016-01-27

Map

Map

Alameda	Van de Kamp	73.6%
	Gleason	21.5%
	Other	4.9%

Alpine	Van de Kamp	54.4%
	Gleason	36.2%
	Other	9.4%

Amador	Van de Kamp	62.5%
	Gleason	32.3%
	Other	5.3%

Butte	Van de Kamp	60.8%
	Gleason	34.3%
	Other	4.9%

Calaveras	Van de Kamp	61.1%
	Gleason	34.5%
	Other	4.4%

Colusa	Van de Kamp	65.8%
	Gleason	30.5%
	Other	3.7%

Contra Costa	Van de Kamp	65.4%
	Gleason	30.5%
	Other	4.1%

Del Norte	Van de Kamp	61.1%
	Gleason	31.9%
	Other	7.1%

El Dorado	Van de Kamp	57.5%
	Gleason	36.8%
	Other	5.7%

Fresno	Van de Kamp	65.8%
	Gleason	30.5%
	Other	3.7%

Glenn	Van de Kamp	61.4%
	Gleason	33.4%
	Other	5.2%

Humboldt	Van de Kamp	63.8%
	Gleason	26.3%
	Other	9.9%

Imperial	Van de Kamp	64.3%
	Gleason	31.7%
	Other	4.0%

Inyo	Van de Kamp	59.7%
	Gleason	36.7%
	Other	3.6%

Kern	Van de Kamp	64.1%
	Gleason	32.6%
	Other	3.3%

Kings	Van de Kamp	67.4%
	Gleason	29.3%
	Other	3.3%

Lake	Van de Kamp	62.5%
	Gleason	32.8%
	Other	4.7%

Lassen	Van de Kamp	62.8%
	Gleason	30.5%
	Other	6.7%

Los Angeles	Van de Kamp	71.1%
	Gleason	25.6%
	Other	3.3%

Madera	Van de Kamp	58.9%
	Gleason	31.9%
	Other	9.3%

Marin	Van de Kamp	69.0%
	Gleason	26.2%
	Other	4.8%

Mariposa	Van de Kamp	58.9%
	Gleason	34.8%
	Other	6.3%

Mendocino	Van de Kamp	59.6%
	Gleason	29.0%
	Other	11.4%

Merced	Van de Kamp	64.4%
	Gleason	26.4%
	Other	9.3%

Modoc	Van de Kamp	56.1%
	Gleason	38.4%
	Other	5.6%

Mono	Van de Kamp	56.3%
	Gleason	38.9%
	Other	4.9%

Monterey	Van de Kamp	62.5%
	Gleason	33.2%
	Other	4.4%

Napa	Van de Kamp	60.8%
	Gleason	34.9%
	Other	4.3%

Nevada	Van de Kamp	55.5%
	Gleason	38.3%
	Other	6.2%

Orange	Van de Kamp	54.8%
	Gleason	41.7%
	Other	3.5%

Placer	Van de Kamp	60.4%
	Gleason	34.3%
	Other	5.3%

Plumas	Van de Kamp	64.8%
	Gleason	26.4%
	Other	8.7%

Riverside	Van de Kamp	62.1%
	Gleason	34.6%
	Other	3.3%

Sacramento	Van de Kamp	68.9%
	Gleason	26.7%
	Other	4.3%

San Benito	Van de Kamp	57.8%
	Gleason	29.5%
	Other	12.7%

San Bernardino	Van de Kamp	64.4%
	Gleason	31.5%
	Other	4.0%

San Diego	Van de Kamp	59.0%
	Gleason	36.4%
	Other	4.6%

San Francisco	Van de Kamp	80.2%
	Gleason	14.2%
	Other	5.6%

San Joaquin	Van de Kamp	66.0%
	Gleason	30.0%
	Other	4.0%

San Luis Obispo	Van de Kamp	58.7%
	Gleason	37.0%
	Other	4.3%

San Mateo	Van de Kamp	68.7%
	Gleason	26.1%
	Other	5.2%

Santa Barbara	Van de Kamp	62.8%
	Gleason	33.4%
	Other	3.9%

Santa Clara	Van de Kamp	63.7%
	Gleason	31.2%
	Other	5.1%

Santa Cruz	Van de Kamp	65.9%
	Gleason	27.0%
	Other	7.1%

Shasta	Van de Kamp	62.6%
	Gleason	31.8%
	Other	5.6%

Sierra	Van de Kamp	64.5%
	Gleason	30.3%
	Other	5.2%

Siskiyou	Van de Kamp	61.3%
	Gleason	32.4%
	Other	6.4%

Solano	Van de Kamp	70.6%
	Gleason	25.0%
	Other	4.4%

Sonoma	Van de Kamp	64.2%
	Gleason	29.5%
	Other	6.3%

Stanislaus	Van de Kamp	68.4%
	Gleason	27.8%
	Other	3.8%

Sutter	Van de Kamp	54.9%
	Gleason	39.7%
	Other	5.4%

Tehama	Van de Kamp	61.1%
	Gleason	33.1%
	Other	5.7%

Trinity	Van de Kamp	57.6%
	Gleason	32.2%
	Other	10.2%

Tulare	Van de Kamp	60.0%
	Gleason	36.5%
	Other	3.5%

Tuolumne	Van de Kamp	64.1%
	Gleason	31.9%
	Other	3.9%

Ventura	Van de Kamp	61.2%
	Gleason	35.1%
	Other	3.7%

Yolo	Van de Kamp	71.8%
	Gleason	23.9%
	Other	4.3%

Yuba	Van de Kamp	61.8%
	Gleason	33.2%
	Other	5.0%

National DataGraph for 1986 - California Results for 1986

Login

Terms of Use - DCMA Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

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