Do you actually mean "annihilate", or merely "beat"?
You see, "annihilate" is Emmo Fittipaldi beating team-mate Dave Walker in '72 - Emmo getting 5 wins and 61 points, Dave getting no wins and not a single point, in one of the best F1 cars relative to the competition ever to grace the planet. Or Ayrton Senna up against Johnny Dumfries (i.e. John Crichton-Stuart, 7th Marquess of Bute) in '86 - 8 podiums inc. 2 wins and 55 points for Ayrton, 2 points finishes and 3 points for the Earl of Dumfries. Oh, and
Ayrton versus Michael Andretti in '93, and Mansell versus Coulthard in '94 (I 'm only half-joking here - Mansell competed in half as many races, and scored just 1 point less IIRC), and....
....eh, screw it. I can go on if you really want, but I'm pretty sure I already made my point. Hamilton was never going to "annihilate" Button. It was always possible (in fact, more than possible) that he'd beat him. And of course, there's still a chance that the positions could go tit-over-backside and see Button finishing above Hamilton. Unlikely, with the way the table stands, but possible.
"Annihilate" and "beat" are two entirely separate concepts. And anyone who seriously thought that Button would be annihilated by Hamilton in 2010 obviously wasn't paying quite as much attention as they thought they were, in my opinion.