Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News last night after Obama's win, “...this is not a mandate in the number [of electoral votes]...”

Fox News repeated the "no mandate" line several times throughout the night after the results came in.

Twitter was ablaze with comments from the right echoing the "he has no mandate" refrain.

Herman Caine tweeted that, "Obama won on Popularity", as if that were a bad thing. Apparently, Mr. Caine is unaware of how elections work.

This has not gone unnoticed. Time magazine writer Michael Grunwald, “Amazing how quickly 'Obama Has No Chance went to Obama Has No Mandate'.”

The fact is, President Obama does have a mandate. Let us compare to G.W. Bush's victory in 2000. Bush thought he had a mandate too, even though he lost the popular vote by more than 500,000 and narrowly won the electoral vote, with 271 to Gore's 266. He used that mandate to cut taxes for the wealthy.

In 2004, Bush won with 286 electoral votes to John Kerry’s 252, and with a 2.4 percent margin in the popular vote, and again it was agreed that he had a mandate.

Today, Obama currently has 303 electoral votes to Romney’s 206. He’s likely to add to that with the 29 votes from Florida, which hasn’t been officially called yet, for a grand total of 332 to Romney's 206.  It’s too early to tell on the popular vote, but it will be between 2 and 3 percent.

To sum it up, Obama won by a far bigger margin than Bush, but conservatives are trying to claim that Bush got a mandate and Obama didn’t?  How does that work?

Later, House Speaker John Boehner chimed in, “With this vote, the American people have also made clear that there is no mandate for raising tax rates.” He said this despite the fact that more than 70 percent surveyed by exit polls yesterday favored boosting taxes on Americans making more than $250,000 per year.

Cognitive dissonance.