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

Adams	Casey	37.3%
	Smith	60.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Allegheny	Casey	59.3%
	Smith	38.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Armstrong	Casey	32.2%
	Smith	65.9%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Beaver	Casey	50.1%
	Smith	47.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Bedford	Casey	25.7%
	Smith	72.7%
		0.0%
	Other	1.6%

Berks	Casey	50.8%
	Smith	47.4%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Blair	Casey	34.7%
	Smith	63.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Bradford	Casey	35.4%
	Smith	62.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.5%

Bucks	Casey	51.6%
	Smith	47.0%
		0.0%
	Other	1.4%

Butler	Casey	34.5%
	Smith	63.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Cambria	Casey	47.7%
	Smith	50.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Cameron	Casey	36.3%
	Smith	60.4%
		0.0%
	Other	3.3%

Carbon	Casey	47.2%
	Smith	50.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Centre	Casey	49.9%
	Smith	46.9%
		0.0%
	Other	3.2%

Chester	Casey	50.4%
	Smith	47.8%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Clarion	Casey	31.6%
	Smith	64.7%
		0.0%
	Other	3.6%

Clearfield	Casey	35.4%
	Smith	62.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Clinton	Casey	44.5%
	Smith	53.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Columbia	Casey	44.6%
	Smith	53.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Crawford	Casey	37.3%
	Smith	60.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Cumberland	Casey	42.1%
	Smith	55.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Dauphin	Casey	54.1%
	Smith	44.5%
		0.0%
	Other	1.4%

Delaware	Casey	61.6%
	Smith	37.5%
		0.0%
	Other	1.0%

Elk	Casey	42.6%
	Smith	54.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.9%

Erie	Casey	55.9%
	Smith	41.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Fayette	Casey	50.5%
	Smith	47.7%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Forest	Casey	38.4%
	Smith	58.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.7%

Franklin	Casey	31.5%
	Smith	66.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Fulton	Casey	26.2%
	Smith	71.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Greene	Casey	47.3%
	Smith	50.8%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Huntingdon	Casey	33.2%
	Smith	64.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.5%

Indiana	Casey	41.2%
	Smith	56.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Jefferson	Casey	27.0%
	Smith	70.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Juniata	Casey	31.5%
	Smith	66.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Lackawanna	Casey	66.7%
	Smith	31.8%
		0.0%
	Other	1.6%

Lancaster	Casey	40.3%
	Smith	57.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Lawrence	Casey	48.1%
	Smith	50.1%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Lebanon	Casey	37.5%
	Smith	60.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Lehigh	Casey	55.1%
	Smith	43.0%
		0.0%
	Other	1.9%

Luzerne	Casey	54.5%
	Smith	43.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Lycoming	Casey	35.1%
	Smith	62.9%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

McKean	Casey	35.9%
	Smith	62.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Mercer	Casey	48.4%
	Smith	49.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Mifflin	Casey	30.3%
	Smith	68.1%
		0.0%
	Other	1.6%

Monroe	Casey	55.8%
	Smith	42.6%
		0.0%
	Other	1.5%

Montgomery	Casey	58.4%
	Smith	40.7%
		0.0%
	Other	0.9%

Montour	Casey	40.3%
	Smith	57.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.5%

Northampton	Casey	54.0%
	Smith	44.6%
		0.0%
	Other	1.4%

Northumberland	Casey	39.5%
	Smith	58.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Perry	Casey	32.3%
	Smith	65.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

Philadelphia	Casey	86.4%
	Smith	12.9%
		0.0%
	Other	0.7%

Pike	Casey	44.2%
	Smith	53.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Potter	Casey	27.3%
	Smith	70.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.4%

Schuylkill	Casey	42.9%
	Smith	55.0%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Snyder	Casey	31.3%
	Smith	66.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.5%

Somerset	Casey	32.1%
	Smith	65.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.2%

Sullivan	Casey	35.9%
	Smith	61.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.5%

Susquehanna	Casey	39.3%
	Smith	58.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.1%

Tioga	Casey	31.3%
	Smith	66.5%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Union	Casey	38.0%
	Smith	59.7%
		0.0%
	Other	2.3%

Venango	Casey	35.5%
	Smith	61.8%
		0.0%
	Other	2.8%

Warren	Casey	37.7%
	Smith	59.4%
		0.0%
	Other	2.8%

Washington	Casey	46.7%
	Smith	51.3%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Wayne	Casey	40.9%
	Smith	57.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.0%

Westmoreland	Casey	41.4%
	Smith	56.8%
		0.0%
	Other	1.8%

Wyoming	Casey	43.3%
	Smith	54.1%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

York	Casey	39.8%
	Smith	57.6%
		0.0%
	Other	2.6%

National DataGraph for 2012 - Pennsylvania Results for 2012

Login

Terms of Use - DCMA Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

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