Obama's 'landslide'

I was in the USA last week and taking a look at the aftermath of Obama's win. It was predictable, I suppose, that the Democrats concentrated on the electoral college and called it a 'landslide', which, in that sense, it was, while Republicans stressed the narrowness of the win in terms of the popular vote. Certainly it was not a landslide in this latter sense. Can both sides be right ? Well, yes, I believe they can, but not, perhaps, as the Democrats would have it. We know that there are about 45% of the voters who will support the Democratic candidate come hell or high water (sorry for the unsubtle illusion to Sandy there), while a different 45% will always vote Republican, even if the candidate is deceased. (it happened recently in Missouri). This leaves a central 10% who can be persuaded. Now, of these, Obama won by a margin of about 7-3. Now that IS a landslide. This is why both sides can be right at the same time. It was, I think, a decisive win, perhaps not a landslide in the full sense of the word. Republicans in the USA are taking two views. Some are saying it was very close and that Obama 'bought' his victory with 'gifts' to minorities. They therefore believe Romney's campaign went OK and Obama stole the election. The others recognise that this was a flawed campaign and that Republicanism has lost its way. Well, again, both may be right in their way. The only way in which a candidate is going to be able to claim an undeniable mandate is if they can expand that central 10% to about 20% and win it all. The last president to do this was, arguably, Richard Nixon in 1968. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan also came close. Prospects do not look good. Political beliefs in the USA seem more entrenched than ever.