[cowboyway]

He was more that 10 points more popular than his nearest opponent.

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?

[Non-Sequitur]

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 you can spin it whatever way you want to. Lincoln would have won if he had a single opponent instead of 3, and if he'd still gotten only 39% of the vote.

You're getting more absurd and irrational with every post.

What is absurd or irrational about the truth? Even with three opponents Lincoln took 50.1% or more of the votes cast in states with 173 electoral votes. Enough to win.

BTW, who are you saying got 90% of the electoral votes?

What other president have we been talking about? Reagan took 90.9% of the electoral vote in 1980 and 97.6% of them in 1988. But according to you the '84 election was a real squeaker.