Not a landslide?

The wingnuts are naturally trying to downplay the magnitude of Obama's win. And it's true -- I think a "landslide" probably should be reserved for any EV count over 400. By that measure, it wasn't a landslide. But...

• Obama received the most votes of any presidential candidate in history -- over 63M, besting W's 62M in 2004.
• Obama received a higher percentage of votes (53%) than George W. Bush in '04 or '00, than Clinton in '96 or '92, and more than St. Reagan in 1980 (50%). He matches George HW Bush's mark in '88 -- and posted the highest percentage by a Democrat since LBJ's 61% in 1964.
• Obama received more electoral votes (364) than George W. Bush in '04 (286) and '00 (271), more than Carter in '76, and more than Nixon in '68, Kennedy in '60, and Truman in '48.
• Obama brought with him increased gains in the Democratic Senate and House -- the first time Democrats have extended their majorities in back-to-back elections since the 1930s.

Bottom line: the size of Obama's win crushes either of W's, who posted two anemic, 1-state wins, and lost the popular vote in 2000. And this is the guy who they chriped for years about having a "mandate" and was going to remake the country with permanent majorities for the GOP and Peggy Noonan was savoring.

So no, it's not LBJ in 1964. But the wingnuts have lowered the bar for the word "landslide."