The weird thing about the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary is that Hillary Clinton did about as well this year as she did in 2008, percentage-wise. In the state's main counties, Clinton performed on average only about two percentage points worse than she did eight years ago (according to vote totals as of Wednesday morning) -- and in five of the 10 counties, she did as well or better.

If you plot her 2008 results against her 2016 percentages, it's a neat little circle in the middle of the graph. About the same, across the board.

Her support was also differently distributed across the state. In 2008, she performed much better in the northern and southern parts of New Hampshire. This year, she did a bit better in the eastern than western part of the state, but the support was more evenly distributed.

Why did Clinton do less well in the western part of the state? Perhaps because that's the area that abuts Vermont, the home state of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.). In Grafton, Cheshire and Sullivan counties -- which abut Vermont -- Clinton got 33.9 percent of the vote in 2008, vs. 30.6 percent this year. In the eastern counties of Carroll, Belknap, Stafford and Rockingham, she got 38.6 percent in 2008 to 37.4 percent on Tuesday.

The difference between her win in 2008 and her loss in 2016 was that, in 2008, she could win those counties with lower percentages because she was running against two people, not one.

If we drop the winning percentages in each county on to that first chart, it's obvious the extent to which Clinton wasn't even close to winning any of the counties in the state, despite seeing similar percentages of support.

(Final results aren't in as of writing, but it's worth noting that Clinton appears to have received fewer actual votes than she did in 2008, sometimes by wide margins.)

That Sanders was running against one another person helped boost his margin of victory, too. He won by a wider margin than any Democrat since John F. Kennedy, who demolished a guy named Paul Fisher and was aided by being the senator of another border state, Massachusetts.

Had Sanders been running against other strong candidates, his vote percentage would necessarily have been smaller. But it's not as though he wasn't running against a very strong candidate. Hillary Clinton, as we noted on Tuesday night, got beaten soundly among nearly every demographic group. Sanders wasn't beatable.

It was that kind of night. On the Republican side, Donald Trump saw the biggest margin since Ronald Reagan, but didn't do that much better than Mitt Romney in 2012 or John McCain in 2000.

Trump's win was remarkable for a number of reasons, but his margin wasn't really one of them. Sanders's victory was remarkable for a number of reasons, too -- but the fact that he crushed Clinton so thoroughly should be added to the list.