[ubernostrum]

While it's fashionable to try to deflect literally anything nowadays with "But... Obama!" I will point out that the 2008 US Presidential election was not particularly close. The winning candidate (Obama) carried 365 electoral votes (needing only 270) and won the popular vote by a margin of approximately 10 million votes/7 percentage points.

The 2016 US Presidential election, by contrast, was quite close: the winning candidate carried only 304 electoral votes, and lost the popular vote (which went by roughly 2 percentage points to the losing candidate). Several analyses have shown that even very small shifts in a couple of states would have sent the election the other way.

In general, people don't get worked up about landslide elections when the popular support for the landslide winner is incredibly obvious. They do worry about signs of interference in close ones, though.

This is, incidentally, what a number of liberal activists have been suggesting as a plan for this year's midterm elections, and the 2020 presidential election: in a close race, a small amount of meddling/outside influence can change the outcome. But a high-turnout race with a significant majority turning out to vote as a bloc is much harder to corrupt, or at least to corrupt in a suitably deniable way.