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

Adair	Boren	43.9%
	Inhofe	53.4%
	Other	2.7%

Alfalfa	Boren	30.6%
	Inhofe	66.4%
	Other	3.0%

Atoka	Boren	49.3%
	Inhofe	47.9%
	Other	2.7%

Beaver	Boren	22.3%
	Inhofe	75.4%
	Other	2.3%

Beckham	Boren	40.5%
	Inhofe	56.1%
	Other	3.4%

Blaine	Boren	34.0%
	Inhofe	63.0%
	Other	3.0%

Bryan	Boren	52.9%
	Inhofe	44.4%
	Other	2.6%

Caddo	Boren	48.1%
	Inhofe	48.8%
	Other	3.0%

Canadian	Boren	26.6%
	Inhofe	69.6%
	Other	3.8%

Carter	Boren	41.5%
	Inhofe	55.4%
	Other	3.0%

Cherokee	Boren	54.8%
	Inhofe	42.6%
	Other	2.6%

Choctaw	Boren	58.4%
	Inhofe	39.5%
	Other	2.1%

Cimarron	Boren	27.3%
	Inhofe	70.5%
	Other	2.2%

Cleveland	Boren	35.8%
	Inhofe	59.9%
	Other	4.3%

Coal	Boren	51.5%
	Inhofe	45.7%
	Other	2.9%

Comanche	Boren	41.1%
	Inhofe	55.7%
	Other	3.2%

Cotton	Boren	48.8%
	Inhofe	48.3%
	Other	2.9%

Craig	Boren	46.0%
	Inhofe	51.1%
	Other	2.9%

Creek	Boren	42.9%
	Inhofe	54.1%
	Other	3.1%

Custer	Boren	35.1%
	Inhofe	61.8%
	Other	3.1%

Delaware	Boren	44.8%
	Inhofe	52.5%
	Other	2.7%

Dewey	Boren	32.4%
	Inhofe	65.0%
	Other	2.5%

Ellis	Boren	28.7%
	Inhofe	68.7%
	Other	2.6%

Garfield	Boren	29.7%
	Inhofe	66.9%
	Other	3.4%

Garvin	Boren	46.2%
	Inhofe	50.3%
	Other	3.4%

Grady	Boren	39.0%
	Inhofe	57.1%
	Other	3.8%

Grant	Boren	31.8%
	Inhofe	63.6%
	Other	4.6%

Greer	Boren	48.7%
	Inhofe	48.5%
	Other	2.8%

Harmon	Boren	55.2%
	Inhofe	43.5%
	Other	1.3%

Harper	Boren	28.0%
	Inhofe	68.4%
	Other	3.6%

Haskell	Boren	62.4%
	Inhofe	35.0%
	Other	2.6%

Hughes	Boren	55.3%
	Inhofe	41.6%
	Other	3.1%

Jackson	Boren	36.6%
	Inhofe	61.4%
	Other	2.0%

Jefferson	Boren	55.4%
	Inhofe	41.7%
	Other	2.9%

Johnston	Boren	50.5%
	Inhofe	45.8%
	Other	3.8%

Kay	Boren	34.6%
	Inhofe	61.9%
	Other	3.5%

Kingfisher	Boren	24.2%
	Inhofe	72.6%
	Other	3.1%

Kiowa	Boren	46.4%
	Inhofe	51.7%
	Other	1.9%

Latimer	Boren	58.7%
	Inhofe	37.8%
	Other	3.5%

Le Flore	Boren	54.0%
	Inhofe	43.3%
	Other	2.7%

Lincoln	Boren	36.9%
	Inhofe	59.3%
	Other	3.9%

Logan	Boren	36.0%
	Inhofe	60.0%
	Other	4.1%

Love	Boren	47.5%
	Inhofe	49.4%
	Other	3.1%

McClain	Boren	36.9%
	Inhofe	58.9%
	Other	4.2%

McCurtain	Boren	52.4%
	Inhofe	44.9%
	Other	2.7%

McIntosh	Boren	55.5%
	Inhofe	42.0%
	Other	2.5%

Major	Boren	21.8%
	Inhofe	75.3%
	Other	2.9%

Marshall	Boren	50.0%
	Inhofe	46.7%
	Other	3.3%

Mayes	Boren	48.5%
	Inhofe	49.1%
	Other	2.5%

Murray	Boren	48.9%
	Inhofe	47.9%
	Other	3.2%

Muskogee	Boren	52.6%
	Inhofe	44.8%
	Other	2.6%

Noble	Boren	31.5%
	Inhofe	64.2%
	Other	4.3%

Nowata	Boren	45.6%
	Inhofe	51.2%
	Other	3.3%

Okfuskee	Boren	52.4%
	Inhofe	44.5%
	Other	3.1%

Oklahoma	Boren	34.0%
	Inhofe	62.3%
	Other	3.7%

Okmulgee	Boren	57.8%
	Inhofe	39.8%
	Other	2.5%

Osage	Boren	49.3%
	Inhofe	47.7%
	Other	3.0%

Ottawa	Boren	54.2%
	Inhofe	42.6%
	Other	3.2%

Pawnee	Boren	44.4%
	Inhofe	53.0%
	Other	2.6%

Payne	Boren	38.9%
	Inhofe	56.8%
	Other	4.3%

Pittsburg	Boren	53.0%
	Inhofe	43.8%
	Other	3.1%

Pontotoc	Boren	45.2%
	Inhofe	50.9%
	Other	3.9%

Pottawatomie	Boren	40.4%
	Inhofe	55.4%
	Other	4.2%

Pushmataha	Boren	52.5%
	Inhofe	44.7%
	Other	2.9%

Roger Mills	Boren	36.1%
	Inhofe	61.2%
	Other	2.7%

Rogers	Boren	39.4%
	Inhofe	57.8%
	Other	2.8%

Seminole	Boren	52.1%
	Inhofe	44.1%
	Other	3.7%

Sequoyah	Boren	53.4%
	Inhofe	43.7%
	Other	2.9%

Stephens	Boren	41.6%
	Inhofe	55.8%
	Other	2.6%

Texas	Boren	26.2%
	Inhofe	71.5%
	Other	2.3%

Tillman	Boren	52.0%
	Inhofe	46.1%
	Other	1.9%

Tulsa	Boren	38.9%
	Inhofe	58.4%
	Other	2.7%

Wagoner	Boren	40.8%
	Inhofe	56.4%
	Other	2.8%

Washington	Boren	33.8%
	Inhofe	63.3%
	Other	2.9%

Washita	Boren	39.1%
	Inhofe	56.9%
	Other	4.0%

Woods	Boren	35.9%
	Inhofe	60.7%
	Other	3.4%

Woodward	Boren	28.7%
	Inhofe	67.8%
	Other	3.5%

National DataGraph for 1996 - Oklahoma Results for 1996

Login

Terms of Use - DCMA Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

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