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

Alamance	Beasley	43.1%
	Budd	54.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Alexander	Beasley	19.9%
	Budd	77.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Alleghany	Beasley	24.9%
	Budd	72.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.5%

Anson	Beasley	46.4%
	Budd	51.8%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Ashe	Beasley	26.8%
	Budd	70.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Avery	Beasley	23.3%
	Budd	74.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Beaufort	Beasley	32.9%
	Budd	65.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Bertie	Beasley	54.9%
	Budd	43.7%
		0.0%
	Other	1.4%

Bladen	Beasley	40.7%
	Budd	57.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Brunswick	Beasley	36.5%
	Budd	61.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Buncombe	Beasley	61.4%
	Budd	36.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Burke	Beasley	29.5%
	Budd	68.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Cabarrus	Beasley	42.8%
	Budd	54.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Caldwell	Beasley	22.9%
	Budd	74.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Camden	Beasley	23.5%
	Budd	73.1%
		0.0%
	Other	3.4%

Carteret	Beasley	27.4%
	Budd	70.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Caswell	Beasley	38.4%
	Budd	60.0%
		0.0%
	Other	1.6%

Catawba	Beasley	28.9%
	Budd	68.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Chatham	Beasley	57.0%
	Budd	41.2%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Cherokee	Beasley	20.1%
	Budd	77.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Chowan	Beasley	37.1%
	Budd	60.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Clay	Beasley	24.3%
	Budd	73.8%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Cleveland	Beasley	32.1%
	Budd	65.9%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Columbus	Beasley	36.2%
	Budd	61.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Craven	Beasley	38.1%
	Budd	59.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Cumberland	Beasley	55.3%
	Budd	42.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Currituck	Beasley	23.5%
	Budd	73.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Dare	Beasley	39.8%
	Budd	57.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.9%

Davidson	Beasley	24.7%
	Budd	73.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Davie	Beasley	24.9%
	Budd	73.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Duplin	Beasley	33.3%
	Budd	64.8%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Durham	Beasley	80.9%
	Budd	17.3%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Edgecombe	Beasley	59.5%
	Budd	39.0%
		0.0%
	Other	1.5%

Forsyth	Beasley	54.5%
	Budd	43.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Franklin	Beasley	42.3%
	Budd	55.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Gaston	Beasley	35.0%
	Budd	63.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Gates	Beasley	40.8%
	Budd	56.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.8%

Graham	Beasley	18.0%
	Budd	78.8%
		0.0%
	Other	3.2%

Granville	Beasley	44.7%
	Budd	52.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Greene	Beasley	39.9%
	Budd	58.2%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Guilford	Beasley	58.0%
	Budd	39.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Halifax	Beasley	56.5%
	Budd	42.2%
		0.0%
	Other	1.3%

Harnett	Beasley	35.6%
	Budd	61.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.5%

Haywood	Beasley	37.3%
	Budd	60.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

Henderson	Beasley	39.4%
	Budd	58.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Hertford	Beasley	62.1%
	Budd	36.4%
		0.0%
	Other	1.6%

Hoke	Beasley	54.3%
	Budd	42.7%
		0.0%
	Other	3.0%

Hyde	Beasley	39.2%
	Budd	58.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Iredell	Beasley	30.8%
	Budd	66.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Jackson	Beasley	43.9%
	Budd	53.0%
		0.0%
	Other	3.0%

Johnston	Beasley	37.0%
	Budd	60.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Jones	Beasley	36.1%
	Budd	61.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Lee	Beasley	40.4%
	Budd	57.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Lenoir	Beasley	42.1%
	Budd	55.9%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Lincoln	Beasley	26.0%
	Budd	72.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

McDowell	Beasley	24.2%
	Budd	73.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Macon	Beasley	29.3%
	Budd	67.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

Madison	Beasley	39.2%
	Budd	57.4%
		0.0%
	Other	3.4%

Martin	Beasley	43.9%
	Budd	53.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Mecklenburg	Beasley	65.2%
	Budd	32.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Mitchell	Beasley	20.7%
	Budd	76.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Montgomery	Beasley	30.7%
	Budd	67.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Moore	Beasley	34.5%
	Budd	63.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Nash	Beasley	45.9%
	Budd	52.6%
		0.0%
	Other	1.5%

New Hanover	Beasley	49.8%
	Budd	47.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Northampton	Beasley	54.9%
	Budd	43.7%
		0.0%
	Other	1.4%

Onslow	Beasley	30.8%
	Budd	66.1%
		0.0%
	Other	3.1%

Orange	Beasley	76.8%
	Budd	21.4%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Pamlico	Beasley	34.0%
	Budd	63.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Pasquotank	Beasley	45.7%
	Budd	51.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

Pender	Beasley	32.1%
	Budd	65.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Perquimans	Beasley	28.5%
	Budd	69.7%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Person	Beasley	38.2%
	Budd	59.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Pitt	Beasley	50.3%
	Budd	47.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Polk	Beasley	38.1%
	Budd	59.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Randolph	Beasley	19.3%
	Budd	78.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Richmond	Beasley	39.8%
	Budd	58.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Robeson	Beasley	39.7%
	Budd	58.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Rockingham	Beasley	31.0%
	Budd	66.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Rowan	Beasley	29.6%
	Budd	68.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Rutherford	Beasley	23.6%
	Budd	73.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Sampson	Beasley	33.8%
	Budd	64.7%
		0.0%
	Other	1.5%

Scotland	Beasley	45.8%
	Budd	51.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.5%

Stanly	Beasley	21.9%
	Budd	75.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Stokes	Beasley	20.9%
	Budd	76.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

Surry	Beasley	23.6%
	Budd	74.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Swain	Beasley	35.8%
	Budd	60.4%
		0.0%
	Other	3.9%

Transylvania	Beasley	42.5%
	Budd	54.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.9%

Tyrrell	Beasley	37.6%
	Budd	60.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Union	Beasley	34.8%
	Budd	63.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Vance	Beasley	54.7%
	Budd	43.3%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Wake	Beasley	62.1%
	Budd	35.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Warren	Beasley	60.5%
	Budd	38.3%
		0.0%
	Other	1.2%

Washington	Beasley	49.1%
	Budd	49.0%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Watauga	Beasley	51.2%
	Budd	45.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.9%

Wayne	Beasley	39.6%
	Budd	58.7%
		0.0%
	Other	1.7%

Wilkes	Beasley	19.4%
	Budd	78.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Wilson	Beasley	47.6%
	Budd	50.7%
		0.0%
	Other	1.7%

Yadkin	Beasley	17.3%
	Budd	80.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.5%

Yancey	Beasley	33.1%
	Budd	64.2%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

National DataGraph for 2022 - North Carolina 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