1968 United States presidential election in Tennessee

The 1968 United States presidential election in Tennessee took place on November 5, 1968. All 50 states and the District of Columbia were part of the 1968 United States presidential election. Tennessee voters chose 11 electors to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.

1968 United States presidential election in Tennessee

← 1964 November 5, 1968 1972 →
 
Nominee Richard Nixon George Wallace Hubert Humphrey
Party Republican American Democratic
Home state New York[a] Alabama Minnesota
Running mate Spiro Agnew Curtis LeMay Edmund Muskie
Electoral vote 11 0 0
Popular vote 472,592 424,792 351,233
Percentage 37.85% 34.02% 28.13%


President before election

Lyndon B. Johnson
Democratic

Elected President

Richard Nixon
Republican

Tennessee voted more or less equally for the candidates, resulting in Republican candidate Richard Nixon of New York and his running mate Governor Spiro Agnew of Maryland receiving a plurality of the votes as opposed to a majority. Tennessee had the smallest percentage of the Nixon vote that delivered him the state.

Nixon carried Tennessee with 37.85% of the vote to American Independence Party candidate George Wallace’s 34.02% and Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey's 28.13%, a victory margin of 3.87%. Nixon's victory was due to his large margins in traditionally Republican East Tennessee, while Wallace and Humphrey split Middle Tennessee and West Tennessee.[1][2] As of the 2020 presidential election, this is the last election in which Hamilton County did not support the Republican presidential candidate.[3]

43% of white voters supported Nixon, 39% supported Wallace, and 19% supported Humphrey.[4][5][6]

Results

edit
1968 United States presidential election in Tennessee[1][2]
Party Candidate Votes Percentage Electoral votes
Republican Richard Nixon 472,592 37.85% 11
American George Wallace 424,792 34.02% 0
Democratic Hubert Humphrey 351,233 28.13% 0
Write-ins Write-ins 10 0.00% 0
Totals 1,248,617 100.00% 11
Voter turnout -

Results by county

edit
County Richard Nixon
Republican
George Wallace
American Independent
Hubert Humphrey
Democratic
Margin Total votes cast
# % # % # % # %
Anderson 10,233 47.04% 4,323 19.87% 7,198 33.09% 3,035[b] 13.95% 21,754
Bedford 1,870 22.30% 4,099 48.88% 2,416 28.81% -1,683[c] -20.07% 8,385
Benton 1,468 30.70% 2,255 47.16% 1,059 22.15% -787 -16.46% 4,782
Bledsoe 1,477 46.65% 732 23.12% 957 30.23% 520[b] 16.42% 3,166
Blount 12,753 57.10% 4,407 19.73% 5,176 23.17% 7,577[b] 33.93% 22,336
Bradley 6,924 50.01% 4,159 30.04% 2,762 19.95% 2,765 19.97% 13,845
Campbell 4,024 52.54% 1,367 17.85% 2,268 29.61% 1,756[b] 22.93% 7,659
Cannon 780 25.55% 1,464 47.95% 809 26.50% -655[c] -21.45% 3,053
Carroll 3,757 41.80% 3,298 36.70% 1,932 21.50% 459 5.10% 8,987
Carter 9,467 64.68% 3,009 20.56% 2,160 14.76% 6,458 44.12% 14,636
Cheatham 669 16.96% 2,497 63.31% 778 19.73% -1,719[c] -43.58% 3,944
Chester 1,408 32.79% 2,037 47.44% 849 19.77% -629 -14.65% 4,294
Claiborne 3,101 59.75% 775 14.93% 1,314 25.32% 1,787[b] 34.43% 5,190
Clay 814 42.13% 451 23.34% 667 34.52% 147[b] 7.61% 1,932
Cocke 5,645 72.80% 1,159 14.95% 950 12.25% 4,486 57.85% 7,754
Coffee 3,337 29.87% 4,794 42.91% 3,040 27.21% -1,457 -13.04% 11,171
Crockett 932 20.71% 2,865 63.67% 703 15.62% -1,933 -42.96% 4,500
Cumberland 3,115 51.81% 1,469 24.43% 1,428 23.75% 1,646 27.38% 6,012
Davidson 44,175 32.34% 47,889 35.06% 44,543 32.61% -3,346[c] -2.45% 136,607
Decatur 1,409 36.79% 1,544 40.31% 877 22.90% -135 -3.52% 3,830
DeKalb 1,532 39.33% 1,516 38.92% 847 21.75% 16 0.41% 3,895
Dickson 1,291 18.99% 3,475 51.10% 2,034 29.91% -1,441[c] -21.19% 6,800
Dyer 2,826 26.41% 5,842 54.59% 2,033 19.00% -3,016 -28.18% 10,701
Fayette 740 13.34% 2,570 46.34% 2,236 40.32% -334[c] -6.02% 5,546
Fentress 2,026 57.80% 808 23.05% 671 19.14% 1,218 34.75% 3,505
Franklin 1,700 18.62% 4,939 54.11% 2,489 27.27% -2,450[c] -26.84% 9,128
Gibson 4,093 26.77% 7,233 47.31% 3,962 25.92% -3,140 -20.54% 15,288
Giles 1,264 17.01% 3,966 53.36% 2,203 29.64% -1,763[c] -23.72% 7,433
Grainger 2,788 67.26% 596 14.38% 761 18.36% 2,027[b] 48.90% 4,145
Greene 7,957 58.26% 2,753 20.16% 2,947 21.58% 5,010[b] 36.68% 13,657
Grundy 618 17.33% 1,642 46.03% 1,307 36.64% -335[c] -9.39% 3,567
Hamblen 6,382 57.86% 2,259 20.48% 2,390 21.67% 3,992[b] 36.19% 11,031
Hamilton 29,302 34.54% 32,080 37.82% 23,441 27.64% -2,778 -3.28% 84,823
Hancock 1,489 72.88% 236 11.55% 318 15.57% 1,171[b] 57.31% 2,043
Hardeman 1,171 20.18% 2,924 50.38% 1,709 29.45% -1,215[c] -20.93% 5,804
Hardin 2,910 45.55% 2,325 36.40% 1,153 18.05% 585 9.15% 6,388
Hawkins 6,217 60.78% 1,798 17.58% 2,213 21.64% 4,004[b] 39.14% 10,228
Haywood 1,152 20.51% 2,757 49.07% 1,709 30.42% -1,048[c] -18.65% 5,618
Henderson 3,591 51.99% 2,086 30.20% 1,230 17.81% 1,505 21.79% 6,907
Henry 2,068 23.89% 3,439 39.73% 3,149 36.38% -290[c] -3.35% 8,656
Hickman 760 17.33% 2,473 56.40% 1,152 26.27% -1,321[c] -30.13% 4,385
Houston 232 12.82% 941 52.02% 636 35.16% -305[c] -16.86% 1,809
Humphreys 866 19.90% 2,095 48.14% 1,391 31.96% -704[c] -16.18% 4,352
Jackson 673 24.90% 908 33.59% 1,122 41.51% 214[c] 7.92% 2,703
Jefferson 5,494 67.11% 1,199 14.65% 1,494 18.25% 4,000[b] 48.86% 8,187
Johnson 3,107 79.02% 375 9.54% 450 11.44% 2,657[b] 67.58% 3,932
Knox 47,202 52.44% 18,277 20.31% 24,528 27.25% 22,674[b] 25.19% 90,007
Lake 409 16.99% 1,262 52.41% 737 30.61% -525[c] -21.80% 2,408
Lauderdale 1,080 15.99% 3,566 52.80% 2,108 31.21% -1,458[c] -21.59% 6,754
Lawrence 4,343 41.26% 3,993 37.93% 2,191 20.81% 350 3.33% 10,527
Lewis 455 17.91% 997 39.25% 1,088 42.83% 91[c] 3.58% 2,540
Lincoln 1,167 16.14% 4,214 58.29% 1,848 25.56% -2,366[c] -32.73% 7,229
Loudon 4,299 54.58% 1,996 25.34% 1,581 20.07% 2,303 29.24% 7,876
Macon 2,173 58.04% 1,041 27.80% 530 14.16% 1,132 30.24% 3,744
Madison 6,143 29.14% 9,420 44.69% 5,517 26.17% -3,277 -15.55% 21,080
Marion 1,959 30.59% 2,784 43.47% 1,661 25.94% -825 -12.88% 6,404
Marshall 1,202 19.68% 3,379 55.32% 1,527 25.00% -1,852[c] -30.32% 6,108
Maury 3,048 20.88% 8,148 55.82% 3,401 23.30% -4,747[c] -32.52% 14,597
McMinn 6,098 52.92% 2,535 22.00% 2,889 25.07% 3,209[b] 27.85% 11,522
McNairy 2,979 41.21% 2,872 39.73% 1,377 19.05% 107 1.48% 7,228
Meigs 729 43.81% 442 26.56% 493 29.63% 236[b] 14.18% 1,664
Monroe 4,749 53.38% 1,222 13.73% 2,926 32.89% 1,823[b] 20.49% 8,897
Montgomery 3,248 22.52% 5,638 39.09% 5,538 38.39% -100[c] -0.70% 14,424
Moore 224 15.71% 856 60.03% 346 24.26% -510[c] -35.77% 1,426
Morgan 1,803 47.46% 1,028 27.06% 968 25.48% 775 20.40% 3,799
Obion 2,420 25.92% 4,680 50.13% 2,235 23.94% -2,260 -24.21% 9,335
Overton 1,258 31.25% 1,176 29.21% 1,592 39.54% -334[b] -8.29% 4,026
Perry 519 25.58% 784 38.64% 726 35.78% -58[c] -2.86% 2,029
Pickett 884 59.41% 199 13.37% 405 27.22% 479[b] 32.19% 1,488
Polk 1,808 45.02% 754 18.77% 1,454 36.21% 354[b] 8.81% 4,016
Putnam 3,693 35.83% 3,073 29.81% 3,541 34.36% 152[b] 1.47% 10,307
Rhea 2,428 40.70% 2,237 37.50% 1,301 21.81% 191 3.20% 5,966
Roane 6,033 45.74% 3,898 29.55% 3,258 24.70% 2,135 16.19% 13,189
Robertson 1,802 22.47% 3,904 48.67% 2,315 28.86% -1,589[c] -19.81% 8,021
Rutherford 4,168 24.72% 7,773 46.10% 4,921 29.18% -2,852[c] -16.92% 16,862
Scott 2,406 58.24% 734 17.77% 991 23.99% 1,415[b] 34.25% 4,131
Sequatchie 663 29.82% 1,011 45.48% 549 24.70% -348 -15.66% 2,223
Sevier 7,629 74.67% 1,476 14.45% 1,112 10.88% 6,153 60.22% 10,217
Shelby 73,416 31.66% 76,996 33.20% 81,486 35.14% 4,490[c] 1.94% 231,898
Smith 1,089 24.96% 1,831 41.97% 1,443 33.07% -388[c] -8.90% 4,363
Stewart 443 17.43% 1,057 41.60% 1,041 40.97% -16[c] -0.63% 2,541
Sullivan 20,251 50.60% 9,991 24.96% 9,783 24.44% 10,260 25.64% 40,025
Sumner 4,519 27.41% 7,592 46.05% 4,376 26.54% -3,073 -18.64% 16,487
Tipton 1,422 16.86% 4,943 58.59% 2,071 24.55% -2,872[c] -34.04% 8,436
Trousdale 252 15.80% 649 40.69% 694 43.51% 45[c] 2.82% 1,595
Unicoi 3,327 65.49% 843 16.59% 910 17.91% 2,417[b] 47.58% 5,080
Union 1,956 66.71% 449 15.31% 527 17.97% 1,429[b] 48.74% 2,932
Van Buren 327 29.30% 507 45.43% 282 25.27% -180 -16.13% 1,116
Warren 1,858 24.07% 3,814 49.42% 2,046 26.51% -1,768[c] -22.91% 7,718
Washington 12,882 56.66% 4,925 21.66% 4,930 21.68% 7,952[b] 34.98% 22,737
Wayne 2,417 58.51% 1,208 29.24% 506 12.25% 1,209 29.27% 4,131
Weakley 2,858 30.50% 4,525 48.29% 1,988 21.21% -1,667 -17.79% 9,371
White 1,423 29.91% 1,750 36.79% 1,584 33.30% -166[c] -3.49% 4,757
Williamson 2,788 28.69% 4,867 50.08% 2,063 21.23% -2,079 -21.39% 9,718
Wilson 2,736 24.21% 5,648 49.98% 2,916 25.81% -2,732[c] -24.17% 11,300
Totals 472,592 37.85% 424,792 34.02% 351,233 28.13% 47,800 3.83% 1,248,617[d]

Counties that flipped from Democratic to American Independent

edit

Counties that flipped from Republican to American Independent

edit

Counties that flipped from Democratic to Republican

edit

Notes

edit
  1. ^ Although he was born in California and he served as a U.S. Senator from California, in 1968 Richard Nixon's official state of residence was New York, because he moved there to practice law after his defeat in the 1962 California gubernatorial election. During his first term as president, Nixon re-established his residency in California. Consequently, most reliable reference books list Nixon's home state as New York in the 1968 election and his home state as California in the 1972 (and 1960) election.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y In this county where Wallace did run third behind both Nixon and Humphrey, margin given is Nixon vote minus Humphrey vote and percentage margin Nixon percentage minus Humphrey percentage.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai In this county where Nixon ran third behind both Wallace and Humphrey, margin given is Humphrey vote minus Wallace vote and percentage margin Humphrey percentage minus Wallace percentage.
  4. ^ This total includes 10 write-in votes not separated by county.

References

edit
  1. ^ a b "1968 Presidential General Election Results - Tennessee". Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Retrieved August 25, 2016.
  2. ^ a b Woolley, John; Peters, Gehard. "1968 Presidential Election". The American Presidency Project. University of California, Santa Barbara. Retrieved August 26, 2016.
  3. ^ Sullivan, Robert David; ‘How the Red and Blue Map Evolved Over the Past Century’; America Magazine in The National Catholic Review; June 29, 2016
  4. ^ Black & Black 1992, p. 147.
  5. ^ Black & Black 1992, p. 295.
  6. ^ Black & Black 1992, p. 335.

Works cited

edit