Winning 68% of the electoral college sounds like a landslide to me.
It's all perspective. Your perspective is comparing it to other larger blowouts. Also, consider the fact that Clinton was aided by third party candidates. For me, anything over 60% sounds like a landslide. Yet if you look at the popular vote, it is not as big. It all depends on what you are looking at.
Landslides are not important. (And no, this was not a landslide.) The question is, did the winning candidate receive a mandate? Did he gain political capital that he intends to spend?
Barack Obama did not receive a mandate or gain political capital. A good example of this would be the 2000 and 2004 elections -- in both of which -- the victor received a mandate for change and a tremendous amount of political capital.
You guys have to learn. When a Democrat wins, even by a substantial margin, he is supposed to govern from the center-right. Anything else is arrogant hubris. Even "uppity".
When a Republican wins, even by the thinnest of PV and EV margins, he has a mandate and enough political capital to demand whatever he wants from Congress. This is not arrogant hubris. It is patriotism. And if you question it, you must hate Jesus, America, the troops, little babies and all things good and decent.
Happy to clear it up.
