Here’s another trip into the fact and arithmetic free zone, courtesy of Hugh Hewitt, righty talk show host and columnist for Townhall.

Americans don’t want higher taxes and did not vote for higher taxes. The president’s narrow re-election —the narrowest in modern times…

First, Americans did vote for higher taxes: specifically a return roughly to the Clinton rates for the top 2% of earners. This was a clearly defined issue throughout the election. And public opinion polls show strong support for these hikes.

Second, the GOP holding the House doesn’t “offset” Obama’s victory. They held the House by losing seats and receiving a million fewer votes cumulatively.

Most important and absurd, though, is the assertion that Obama’s victory was the narrowest in modern times. This is only true if you believe “modern times” began in 2005. Bush’s re-election win over Kerry in 2004 was much narrower than the thumping of three weeks ago. (And this article was penned only three days ago, so it’s not as if Hewitt couldn’t find complete election results.)

WTF, let’s compare the numbers:

Electoral Votes:
2004—Bush 286 Kerry 252
2012—Obama 332 Romney 206

Popular vote margin:
2004—Bush wins by 3 million
2012—Obama wins by 4.5 million

Popular vote %:
2004—Bush 50.7% Kerry 48.3% (Bush by 2.4%)
2012—Obama 50.9% Romney 47.4% (Obama by 3.5%)

This is a perfect example of what Fox’s Megyn Kelly* was talking about on election night when she asked Rove about his last minute number crunching, “Is this real, or just ‘math’ that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?”

The partisan purpose here seems clear. First, another attempt to delegitimize a clear and fairly decisive victory. Second, to plant the phrase “narrowest re-election victory” in the RW mind so that it becomes an unquestioned talking point over the next 4 years.

[*Not someone I approvingly quote often, but when she’s right, she’s right…and I appreciate the combination of snark and accuracy on her part]