Well that's certainly not what I saw, and at this level he's
the first Presidential candidate to fight two elections. From what I read from Nate Silver's site, Obama won the lion's share of previously uncommitted voters.
Ane what could have represented a hand-picked candidate from a minority than Mitt Romney. If it had been Eisenhower, or Colin Powell, or someone from a similar background he'd have done far better, and Obama might have been in trouble, but even Republicans couldn't stand Romney.
"or was the winner from a hand-picked collection of minorities?" sounds distinctly like, he doesn't look like me so it's a fraud. Precisely who is it you conceive that does the hand picking? You don't believe it is a natural swing in the leaning of the electorate? and a rejection of the blatant phoniness of Mitt Romney.
This same argument could be pulled by a candidate who lost by 2% in an election with a 97% turn out. "I'd have won if everybody had shown up." said the loser.
Obama got 3 million votes more than Romney in an election with a turn out around 57%. That's a victory, no matter how little you like it. And has served as a victory for Republicans in the past without cheese-paring complaints like this.
As loathesome as the person who said it is, "This is not your grandfather's America" is absolutely true. Then again his America wasn't like his Grandfather's America either. No place stands still through time. Look at the Middle East.
The people who tend to be lazy about elections are the poor and ethnic minorities, meaning that if you'd gone around to everyone and collected their votes odds are Obama would have won quite big, Unlike Bush in 2000 who lost the total vote tally, but won the electoral vote.