He was more that 10 points more popular than his nearest opponent. And it's no spin to say for a fact that even had Lincoln had only 1 opponent and if he'd still gotten only 39% of the vote then he'd still have been president.
You can hardly call just over 50% of the popular vote a resounding mandate.
But you can certainly say that getting 90% of the electoral votes was.
You can try to characterize it anyway you want to but the bottom line is that only 39% for means that 61% were against.
And it's no spin to say for a fact that even had Lincoln had only 1 opponent and if he'd still gotten only 39% of the vote then he'd still have been president.
You're getting more absurd and irrational with every post.
But you can certainly say that getting 90% of the electoral votes was.
More absurdity.
Example: In 2008, Obama got 50.9% of the popular vote in Florida but he got 100% of the electoral college votes.
BTW, who are you saying got 90% of the electoral votes?