Well, here we are on Dec. 3, and the two sides seem to be farther apart than ever.

President Obama visited a toy factory on Friday, but he’s not playing around. His offer, delivered through Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, was a bone thrown to a Democratic base that has been urging him to get tough with Republicans ever since the first stimulus. The offer itself really isn’t a straight-faced proposal. Remember, he told the Des Moines Register before the election that the ratio of revenue to cuts he would seek would be $1 to $2.50. This thing they sent up Thursday claims credit for the money saved in ending the wars, which would not be spent  anyway, AND the cuts that were already signed into law the last time we went through this exercise in 2011.

Clearly, the president feels as though he has the political upper hand. At this point, there seems little chance that he doesn’t insist on most -- if not all -- of the tax hike on the wealthy. He caved two years ago. But that's not likely this time around, fresh off the election.

The only risk he runs is showing too much leg to Republicans on his willingness to make changes to entitlements. Then he loses Democrats. So last week was a display intended for Democrats on the Hill, too, not just Republicans.

In the long run it may help. House Speaker John Boehner can move the $1.6 trillion number back down in talks with the White House and look like he’s actually fought.

I know a lot of smart people who have been involved -- and are involved now -- with these things who have said all along that the period leading up to mid-December is going to be all about just the kind of chest thumping and pre-positioning we are seeing now. The behind-the-scenes consensus is that Obama shows some give on either the income level ($250,000) or the top rate (39.6%), and they are promised to one and other in their commitment to tax and entitlement reform sometime next summer.

For what it’s worth, I am in the camp that says they go over the cliff. I don’t see how Boehner puts a bill on the floor that raises rates on anyone. The party would explode, which might be what Obama has in mind.

In Boehner’s mind, it might be better to come back after Jan. 1 and vote to cut them back to where they were, with the top earners' rates going up.

Call it the inertia scenario. So instead of voting to allow rates to rise on the wealthy before the end of the year, let the rates rise, and then come back in January for a vote on cutting rates -- something Republicans might more likely support.

Bully pulpit, make way for the bully hashtag.

In his latest social media push to get support for his fiscal cliff plan, President Barack Obama participated in a brief Twitter question-and-answer session, alternately defending his position on taxes and addressing concerns over losing favorite tax deductions in the course of fiscal cliff negotiations. 

Among the thousands of submissions using the keyword, or hashtag, “My2K” (the amount the administration says most people would have to pay if their Bush-era tax cuts expired), the president picked eight tweets, most of which seemed chosen to reinforce a key part of his plan.

“What is your opposition to taking away deductions for the 2% rather than up the rate? Seems like a reasonable compromise,” user @huntertred tweeted referring to Republicans offer to close loopholes instead of raising rates, as opposed to the White House’s plan to do both, while keeping some of the most popular and wide-ranging deductions intact.

“@huntertred not enough revenue, unless you end charitable deductions, etc. less revenue=more cuts in education etc,” Obama responded, linking to a blog post from his top economic advisers titled, “Limiting Tax Deductions: The Reality of the Math.”

The president, tweeting at the official @WhiteHouse handle, also warned about threats to some of those popular tax cuts, including the mortgage interest deduction,  that he said might meet the chopping block if Republicans held the line on keeping tax rates low for the wealthiest.

“Breaks for middle class impt for families & econ. if top rates don't go up, danger that middle class deductions get hit,” the president warned @soitgoesem.

He also told @pmmckenzie that any reforms to social programs like Medicare and Medicaid would not affect those who most needed financial help.

“We can reduce deficit in balanced way by ending tax cuts for top 2% + reforms that strengthen safety net & invest in future,” he responded to the question, which asked for assurance that entitlement reform would not hurt the neediest.

While the president did answer eight questions, he really answered seven on the fiscal cliff, as the last one veered off topic to which Chicago sports team would “win it all” first.

“.@Mica4Lifeda bears still gotta shot, despite sad loss this weekend! plus rose will return for playoffs!!! -bo” came the response.

Updated 4:50 p.m. ET -- Republicans offered up their own proposal to avert the impending “fiscal cliff” on Monday amid Democratic demands that the GOP match the Obama administration’s plan with one of their own.

In a letter to President Barack Obama, House Republican leaders outlined the contours of a deal they said would achieve a net savings of $2.2 trillion. The plan, which is based on fiscal commission Democratic co-chairman Erskine Bowles’s proposal to the super committee, would achieve these savings through revenue from tax reforms, health savings and discretionary spending cuts.

Recommended: Income tax rates just one piece of Obama proposal

"Going over the cliff will hurt our economy and hurt job creation in our country. It’s one of the reasons the day after the election I offered a concession to try and speed this process up. Unfortunately, the White House responded with their ‘La-La-Land’ offer that couldn't pass the House or Senate and was basically the president’s budget from last February," House Speaker John Boehner told reporters on Capitol Hill at a briefing detailing the plan.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Speaker John Boehner speaks during a news conference, Nov. 30, 2012, on Capitol Hill.

"We could have responded in kind, but we decided not to do that. What we’re putting forth is a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House and I would hope that they would respond in a timely and responsible way," the Ohio Republican added.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said the plan "does not meet the test of balance."

"Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve," he said. "While the president is willing to compromise to get a significant, balanced deal and believes that compromise is readily available to Congress, he is not willing to compromise on the principles of fairness and balance that include asking the wealthiest to pay higher rates ... Until the Republicans in Congress are willing to get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates, we won't be able to achieve a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit our nation needs."  

The counter-offer coincides with Democratic demands that Republicans produce their own proposal to match the deal offered last week by the administration. That plan, presented to Republicans by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, called for $1.6 trillion in new revenues, savings from entitlement programs and new spending on unemployment insurance and investment projects. GOP leaders rejected the plan out-of-hand.

Still, the GOP proposal on Monday appears to move no further toward compromise on Obama’s central demand that tax rates be allowed to increase on the wealthiest Americans. While Republicans have agreed in principle that richer Americans can shoulder a greater share of the tax burden, they insist this must be achieved through ending loopholes and deductions, rather than raising rates.

The Republican plan, which is also backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., achieves its $2.2 trillion in several steps.

As Republicans put it, they would raise $800 billion in new revenue through tax reform, $600 billion in health savings, $200 billion from changes to the Consumer Price Index, $300 billion in discretionary spending cuts, and another $300 billion in savings in mandatory spending. Many of the health savings track closely with the changes to Medicare first proposed in Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s budgets.

Republicans say the plan, using the Obama administration’s math, would achieve $4.6 trillion in savings.

It’s unclear, though, whether the Republican plan would move toward ending the stalemate around the fiscal cliff negotiations, with less than a month remaining until the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts are scheduled to snap into place on Jan. 1.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pummeled his GOP colleagues earlier Monday afternoon, arguing that their failure to produce a counter-offer would only exacerbate the situation.

The new GOP plan reflects the posturing that has come to characterize these negotiations, separated just a month from an election which awarded Obama a second term and which kept Republicans in control of the House and Democrats in control of the Senate.

Also on Monday, the president continued his messaging offensive on Monday with a glossy campaign-style video highlighting the cost to families if the 2001 Bush-era tax cuts were allowed to expire at the end of this month. (Obama has argued they should be extended for all but the wealthiest 2 percent of U.S. households.)

Benjamin Myers / Reuters

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arrives at Capitol Building before a meeting with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in Washington, D.C., Nov. 29, 2012.

The president also took to Twitter to make the case for his own plan, answering questioners who used the informal 140-character medium to ask about the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Asked by one participant why he insists on increasing rates on the top 2 percent of earners rather than limiting deductions in order to raise revenues, the president replied that capping deductions alone would not raise adequate revenue. 

"Not enough revenue, unless you end charitable deductions, etc. [L]ess revenue=more cuts in education," he wrote.

The president also dismissed the GOP notion that lower taxes for the very wealthy have a trickle-down effect in terms of new hires and a larger tax pool. "High end tax cuts do least for economic growth & cost almost $1T," he wrote. "Extending middle class cuts boosts consumer demand & growth"

Obama also argued that his administration cut spending by $1 trillion last year and that he is open to further "smart cuts" as long as they don't affect education or job growth.

NBC's Frank Thorp contributed to this report.

In the debate over how to avoid going over the “fiscal cliff” of tax increases and spending cuts, much rhetoric has focused on what President Barack Obama is proposing to do on income tax rates, but that’s just a part of the overall revenue total the president proposed raising from higher-income earners in his budget blueprint.

Obama wants the top two marginal income tax rates to be 39.6 percent and 36 percent, instead of the current 35 percent and 33 percent.

Susan Walsh / AP

President Barack Obama speaks at the Rodon Group, which manufactures over 95 percent of the parts for K'NEX Brands toys, Friday, Nov. 30, 2012, in Hatfield, Pa.

But increasing the tax rates that apply to upper-income people is only a part -- less than a third -- of his longer-term tax proposal.

In the short run, Obama is urging the House to take up a one-year tax measure which the Senate OK’d earlier in the year on July 25.

“The Senate has already passed a bill to keep income taxes from going up on middle-class families,” Obama said in his weekly radio address on Saturday. “Democrats in the House are ready to do the same thing. And if we can just get a few House Republicans on board, I’ll sign this bill as soon as Congress sends it my way.”

He said once that bill is signed, then “we’ll have more time to work out a plan to bring down our deficits in a balanced way – including by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more.”

That Senate-passed bill which Obama wants the House to pass would do the following for one year, 2013:

• Extend income tax rates enacted in 2001 for individual taxpayers making less than $200,000, for heads of households making less than $225,000 and for married couples filing a joint tax return who make less than $250,000 a year.
• Raise the top income tax rates on taxpayers above those thresholds to 36 percent and 39.6 percent.
• Increase the tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent on dividend income and capital gains income for taxpayers whose income exceeds the threshold amounts above.
• Extend for a year the American Opportunity tax credit, a temporary tax break to offset college expenses which was enacted in the 2009 stimulus law, and extend for a year several tax breaks for low-income people which were part of the 2009 stimulus.
• Extend for one year the $1,000-per-child tax credit.

Altogether, the Senate bill would reduce tax revenues by about $250 billion, compared to the amount that would be collected if the current tax law expires as scheduled at the end of the year.

But as Obama said Saturday, he wants to enact longer-term tax changes.

And his most detailed public offer on tax policy can be found in his Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposal and the July update of that proposal.

If Congress were to enact the Obama tax rate proposal, that is, reinstate the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income tax rates for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 and for married couples making more than $250,000, the president's Office of Management and Budget says it would reduce cumulative budget deficits over 10 years by nearly $430 billion.

To put that $430 billion in perspective, the deficit for fiscal year 2012 was $1.1 trillion. So the ten-year total of revenue gained from raising income tax rates on higher-income people -- $430 billion  -- wouldn't eliminate one year's deficit, much less the deficits for the next ten years.

The Obama budget proposal calls for a much bigger tax increase on single people over $200,000 and couples over $250,000 -- a grand total of $1.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the ten-year budget period.

The tax rate increases account for only about 30 percent of the $1.4 trillion in revenue that the OMB says would be gained from Obama’s proposed tax increases on higher-income people.

Where would the rest of the $1.4 trillion come from? From limiting deductions and other tax preferences for upper-income people and from increasing taxes on dividends and capital gains.

Obama would limit the ability of married taxpayers filing a joint return with income over $250,000 and single taxpayers with income over $200,000 to benefit from a wide assortment of tax breaks: not only itemized deductions but also tax-exempt interest, employer-sponsored health insurance, and retirement contributions to 401-k and other retirement accounts.

If more revenue is the goal, could this same principle – limiting tax preferences – also apply to taxpayers who make less than $250,000? Many Congressional Democrats – especially those who represent states such as New York with high state and local taxes -- are opposed to that idea. For taxpayers in such states the ability to deduct state and local taxes is an especially valuable tax break.

Although it doesn’t seem to be part of the current bargaining between Obama and GOP Congressional leaders, there’s another tax increase on upper-income people that the president will get on New Year’s Day: the new broadened Medicare tax which will raise $20 billion in 2013 and nearly $40 billion by 2019.

In a new 2-minute Web video, President Obama is reminding people of exactly what he campaigned for during the election: higher taxes on those making $250,000 or more a year.

The clip is part of the Obama administration's social-media push to raise public support for his position of higher taxes on the top 2 percent of earners as "fiscal cliff" negotiations continue. It is one of the first times the post-election the Obama team has used actual footage from the campaign to show verbatim what he called for on the trail.   

"President Obama campaigned on a clear tax plan,” graphics in the video's opening sequence read. Then, a flashback to Obama's speech on Sept. 9 in Florida: "Under my plan, first of all, 98 percent of folks who make less than $250,000, you wouldn't see your income taxes go up a single dime."

Since he won re-election, Obama has highlighted what he believes was his victory in the court of public opinion on taxes, suggesting Republicans should accept the politically popular idea of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

“That's the kind of fair, balanced, responsible plan that I talked about during the campaign, and that's what the majority of Americans believe in,” Obama said in Hatfield, Pa., last Friday in a campaign-style trip to rouse public support for the White House’s position.

Per the Sunday-show rhetoric, both sides remain far apart in budget negotiations… But remember: The real negotiations haven’t even started yet… Democrats and Republicans now find themselves in completely opposite places from 2011… Pelosi threatens to introduce already passed Senate-bill that extends Bush tax cuts for only household income below $250,000… Obama holds bilateral with Bulgaria PM at 2:55 pm ET… Wasserman Schultz to remain DNC chair… Checking in on Mitt Romney… And the latest VA GOV developments.

*** Far apart: Less than a month before the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire and significant spending reductions are supposed to go into effect, the Obama White House and congressional Republicans remain far apart in their negotiations. “We're nowhere, period. We're nowhere,” House Speaker John Boehner said on FOX yesterday. He also blasted the budget offer that the White House gave to Republicans on Thursday, which included $1.6 trillion in increased taxes and revenues, $400 to $600 billion in spending cuts, and the essential end of Congress’ control over the debt limit. “I was flabbergasted… I've just never seen anything like it. You know, we've got seven weeks between Election Day and the end of the year. And three of those weeks have been wasted with this nonsense.”

Larry Downing / Reuters

President Barack Obama hosts a bipartisan meeting with Congressional leaders in the Roosevelt Room of White House to discuss the economy, in this file photo from Nov. 16, 2012.

*** Boehner vs. Geithner on the Sunday shows: Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was adamant that the Bush tax cuts for income above $250,000 would have to expire. “The only thing standing in the way of [a deal] would be a refusal by Republicans to accept that rates have to go up on the wealthiest Americans,” he said on “Meet the Press.” And he added that if Republicans want entitlement changes, they’ll have to propose them. “What we can't do is try to figure out what they need. They have to tell us. And then, we have to take a look at it, and see if we think it makes sense for the American people.” But as bad as things sounded on the shows yesterday, let’s not panic yet. This isn’t all-hands-on-deck time. After all, President Obama was out golfing with Bill Clinton and speaking at the Kennedy Center yesterday. As we’ve told you before, the real negotiations probably won’t start until mid-December.

*** 2011 vs. 2012: Role reversal: What is striking, however, is that Democrats and Republicans now find themselves in COMPLETELY OPPOSITE places than they were in 2011. A year ago, Republicans were the ones – after their victory in the midterms – who had the political winds at their back and felt like they had the mandate. Now it’s the Democrats. In 2011, Republicans were the ones with more detailed plans about spending cuts (think the Ryan plan). Now it’s the White House with a more detailed plan. And back then, Republicans had the leverage with the debt ceiling. But now Democrats are the ones with the leverage, because of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent writes, “[I]f we do nothing, Democrats will get their way. All the tax cuts will expire, and Dems can come back and push a new tax cut just for the middle class -- a circumstance that will only increase the Dems' leverage further.”

*** Pelosi threatens to introduce already-passed Senate bill: And given that leverage, don’t overlook this gambit: House Minority Leader says that Democrats might try to schedule a vote, via a discharge petition, on the already-passed Senate legislation that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts only for household income below $250,000, CNN writes. “‘If Speaker Boehner refuses to schedule this widely-supported bill for a vote, Democrats will introduce a discharge petition to automatically bring to the floor the Senate-passed middle class tax cuts,’ Pelosi said in a statement. Under a ‘discharge petition,’ a bill can be brought to the floor without going through a committee or without approval of House leadership. The bill would need an absolute majority - 218 votes - to pass.”

*** Obama’s day: At 2:55 pm ET, President Obama hosts a bilateral with Bulgaria PM Boyko Borissov. And then about an hour later, at 4:00 pm, he delivers remarks at the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction symposium at the National Defense University.

*** Wasserman Schultz to remain as DNC chair: NBC has confirmed from two Democratic officials that President Obama will ask the Democratic National Committee to ratify Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) to remain as DNC chair when the party next meets in January. Politico first reported the news this morning.

*** Checking in on Romney: Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran a piece checking in on Mitt Romney a little less than a month after his presidential loss. “Four weeks after losing a presidential election he was convinced he would win, Romney’s rapid retreat into seclusion has been marked by repressed emotions, second-guessing and, perhaps for the first time in the overachiever’s adult life, sustained boredom, according to interviews with more than a dozen of Romney’s closest friends and advisers.” More: “Unlike the last two unsuccessful nominees, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Romney had no job waiting for him. His public platform fell out from under him on election night.”

*** The latest VA GOV developments: On Sunday, President Obama golfed with Bill Clinton -- but also with Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe (D) and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk. But could McAuliffe get a primary challenge from former Rep. Tom Perriello. As the Washington Post reported on Friday, “Former congressman Tom Perriello, currently at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, has quietly approached prominent Democrats in recent weeks to let them know that he is at least considering a run, according to party operatives in Virginia. Perriello himself has not responded to several requests from The Washington Post for comment.” With Cuccinelli as the all but assured GOP nominee, the penalty for a primary on the Democratic side would SEEM to be less.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

*** Monday’s “The Daily Rundown” line-up: A deep dive into the consequences of a fiscal cliff plunge and who really wants it with FreedomWorks’ Matt Kibbe… Understanding Republican opposition to ratifying a U.N. treaty to help people with disabilities and the bipartisan group hoping to overcome it with Ted Kennedy Jr. and former Attorney General and Gov. Dick Thornburgh (R-PA)… The New York Times’ Jeff Zeleny, the Chicago Tribune’s Clarence Page, and Republican pollster Kristen Soltis on the fiscal fight forecast.

*** Monday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts interviews Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA), Washington Post Columnist Dana Milbank, Kerry Kennedy, and former State Dept. Officer Joel Rubin.  Today’s Power Panel includes:  TheGrio.com managing editor Joy-Ann Reid, Republican strategist Susan Del Percio and Democratic strategist Blake Zeff.

*** Monday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include former RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Fortune Asst. Managing Editor Leigh Gallagher, The New Republic Editor Franklin Foer, Rolling Stone Executive Editor Eric Bates, and Singer/Songwriter/Entertainer Andrew W.K.

*** Monday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, former U.S.Treasury auto adviser Steve Rattner, former Congresswoman Jane Harman, Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), Plantiffs in the ACLU women in combat lawsuit Zoe Bedell and Ariela Migdal and Jazz musician Wynton Marsalis

*** Monday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews Democratic strategist David Goodfriend, RealClearPolitics’s Erin McPike, Time Magazine’s Jim Frederick and Edge of Sports’ Dave Zirin.

The New York Times’ Baker: “Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table. … Until Republicans offer their own new plan, Mr. Obama will not alter his. In effect, he is trying to leverage what he claims as an election mandate to force Republicans to take ownership of the difficult choices ahead. His approach is born of painful experience. In his first four years in office, Mr. Obama has repeatedly offered what he considered compromises on stimulus spending, health care and deficit reduction to Republicans, who either rejected them as inadequate or pocketed them and insisted on more.”

The AP: “The White House says Republicans should come clean about how much they're willing to raise tax rates on the rich. Republicans counter that President Obama's latest plan is a joke that avoids tough decisions on the nation's biggest entitlement programs, including Medicare.”

Obama golfed yesterday with Bill Clitnon and Terry McAuliffe. Here’s a picture.

On the agenda today, the Bulgarian Prime Minister Borisov (pronounced baw-REES-awf) will be at the White House discussing NATO and Afghanistan. Later, Obama speaks at a nuclear proliferation symposium started by ex-Sens. Lugar and Nunn.

“It survived a historic Supreme Court fight and a bruising presidential election. Next up for President Obama’s groundbreaking law to expand health insurance coverage: winning over a skeptical and, in much of the country, downright hostile public,” The Boston Globe reports. “Health care advocates say lessons — and inspiration — can be drawn from the Massachusetts experience, where a multipronged publicity blitz helped the state achieve near-universal coverage more quickly than lawmakers anticipated when they passed the 2006 law.”

About 800,000 are expected for Obama’s second inauguration, down from the record 1.8 million that showed up four years ago. 

AP: “The partisan political divide over the potential nomination of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to be secretary of state intensified Sunday with Republicans questioning her fitness for the job and Democrats defending her.”

“President Barack Obama could name his next defense secretary in December, far sooner than expected and perhaps in a high-powered package announcement with his choice for secretary of state, several senior administration officials tell The Associated Press. The personnel moves, coupled with Obama’s coming choice for a new leader of the Central Intelligence Agency, will be viewed by U.S. allies and enemies alike as signal of how he will pursue national security in a second term.”

More: “The top names under consideration for defense secretary are former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, former top Pentagon official Michele Flournoy, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.”

The New York Daily News: “With the ‘fiscal cliff’ just four weeks away, partisan finger-pointing Sunday overshadowed substantive talk about how to avoid sharp tax increases and comprehensive spending cuts set to greet America in the new year.”

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) on CNN: “Give us your full plan because as somebody who spent more time doing business deals than I have in politics, you lay out a term sheet.  Give us more details.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH): “I think it's essentially a rerun of his budget proposal…  For the Speaker to come forward and put revenue on the table…that was very difficult.”

Question: How difficult was it really for Boehner to put “revenue” but not rates on the table. It was essentially what Mitt Romney proposed during his campaign – non-specific cuts to deductions and loopholes but with offsetting tax cuts. But that a formula – one that is supposedly “revenue neutral” is one dictated by Grover Norquist, not one subscribed to by the president and Democrats.

A Democratic aide to The Atlantic on who this comes down to: “The fate of a fiscal-cliff deal during the lame duck will probably rest with the ‘middle 80,’ the rank-and-file Republican members who have not accrued gavels or years of service, and who would be the most vulnerable to primary challenges. Will these Republicans take what is sure to be one of the toughest votes of their time in Washington? Or will they stick with Grover, Rush, and the Club for Growth and decide that no deal is better than a tough deal?”

Politico: “Democrats have said they can cut Medicare spending without touching seniors’ benefits. But here’s the reality: They can’t get several hundred billion dollars out of Medicare without at least some beneficiaries taking a hit.”

National Journal on “The Climate Cliff”: “Amid the glittering skyscrapers of Doha, capital of the arid, oil-rich Arab emirate of Qatar, 17,000 diplomats, delegates, nongovernmental organizations, and environmentalists are converging this week and next in the conference halls and backrooms of the 18th annual United Nations climate-change summit. Their goal: pave the way toward a world treaty, to be signed in 2015, aimed at slowing global emissions of heat-trapping fossil-fuel pollution enough to keep the planet’s temperature from rising by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). That’s the point, scientists say, at which the Earth’s polar ice sheets will melt and many of the hottest and driest regions will no longer be able to grow food. The 2-degree mark will set off a chain of extreme reactions, starting with rapid sea-level rise, widespread flooding, more extreme weather events, food shortages, and price spikes.”

Beth Reinhard notes the reality of climate change and its causes and points toward Marco Rubio’s recent statements and the perception of the GOP not being a party of science: “[T]hese are matters of science, not opinion. One doesn’t have to be a scientist, or even a telegenic member of the Senate Science Committee, to know that. If Rubio wants to be the man to rebrand the GOP, he should stick to the facts.”

2016 wannabes are already courting big-money men in their party. Politico: “A week after Election Day, three Republican governors mentioned as 2016 presidential candidates — Bobby Jindal, John Kasich and Bob McDonnell — each stopped by the Venetian Resort Hotel Casino to meet privately with its owner Sheldon Adelson, a man who could single-handedly underwrite their White House ambitions.”

More: “[P]rospective candidates from both parties are wasting little time schmoozing potential super PAC funders. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is meeting with big donors in Los Angeles this week and has a fundraiser scheduled for next Monday in the Washington suburbs. Vice President Joe Biden, Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) have been meeting with big donors, leaving the impression that they’re ready to run.”

J.C. Watts for RNC chair? He says he’s being “encouraged” to run.

Tom Perriello thinking about running for Virginia governor.

David Remnick: “Hillary is running.”