Republican polling firm Resurgent Republic holds a news conference today at the National Press Club at 9:00 am ET to unveil the results of its latest poll, conducted with the Hispanic Leadership Network, an initiative of the conservative American Action Network. It points out: “Regardless of how they typically vote Hispanic voters say the Republican party does not respect the values and concerns of the Hispanic community by 51 to 44 percent in Florida, 54 to 40 percent in New Mexico, 59 to 35 percent in Nevada, and 63 to 30 percent in Colorado. The Democratic Party fares much better, with Hispanic voters saying the party does respect the values and concerns of Hispanic voters by 67 to 28 percent in Florida, 72 to 23 percent in New Mexico and Nevada, and 76 to 20 percent in Colorado. 

“Resolving these challenges is imperative if Republicans hope to remain a competitive force in national politics. The party offers an impressive cadre of Hispanic leaders, and an array of possible immigration reforms and other popular policy initiatives regarding education and small businesses and that are consistent with conservative principles. These four surveys also demonstrate the potential for Republican candidates in four very different Hispanic electorates, and the short and long-term steps that can improve Republicans’ standing in the Hispanic community. When asked a version of a generic ballot for president in 2016, the percentage of Hispanics who say they will likely for a Republican plus those who may vote for a Republican if they like the candidate and his policies surpasses 40 percent in all four states. “

Meanwhile, the Washington Post makes a point that one of us made last week in a look-back at what the Romney campaign did wrong – it paid higher advertising rates than the Obama camp did. The Post: “Obama and his allies spent less on advertising than Romney and his allies but got far more — in the number of ads broadcast, in visibility in key markets and in targeting critical demographic groups, such as the working class and younger voters in swing states. As the presidential race entered its final, furious phase, for example, millions of college football fans tuning in to televised games saw repeated ads for Obama but relatively few from the Romney campaign.”

The Republican National Committee today launched an effort -- dubbed the "Growth and Opportunity Project" -- to examine what worked and what didn't in the 2012 election. The news was first reported by Politico.

The effort -- which will look at things like the ground game, messaging, fundraising, and the primaries -- be chaired by these five Republicans:
-- RNC member Henry Barbour of Mississippi
-- RNC member Zori Fonalledas of Puerto Rico
-- RNC member Glenn McCall of South Carolina
-- Florida political strategist (and Jeb Bush adviser) Sally Bradshaw
-- former Bush 43 White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer

The full release:

WASHINGTON - Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus today launched an initiative to grow the Republican Party and improve future Republican campaigns.

The effort, known as the Growth and Opportunity Project, will be chaired by five GOP leaders and is charged by Priebus with initially reviewing past practices and also making critical recommendations for the future in these eight key areas: 1) campaign mechanics and ground game; 2) messaging; 3) fundraising; 4) demographic partners and allies; 5) third party groups; 6) campaign finance issues; 7) presidential primaries; and 8) lessons learned from Democratic campaign tactics.

The group will reach out to hundreds of individuals including RNC Members, grassroots activists, donors, elected officials, community leaders and other important partners to gain insight and help the Republican Party form a solid path going forward. These leaders will be involved in one or more of these critical areas.

The Growth and Opportunity Project is co-chaired by five prominent Republican leaders:
Henry Barbour, National Committeeman from Mississippi
Zori Fonalledas, National Committeewoman from Puerto Rico
Glenn McCall, National Committeeman from South Carolina
Sally Bradshaw, Veteran senior strategist in Florida and national politics
Ari Fleischer, Former White House Press Secretary

They will report their findings to Chairman Priebus and make recommendations for a long-term strategy for the future.

"The Growth and Opportunity Project will recommend a plan to further ensure Republicans are victorious in 2013, 2014, 2016 and beyond," said Chairman Priebus. "I've appointed a talented group of individuals to study eight key areas, and I look forward to working with these outstanding Republicans as they conduct rigorous analysis and engage in important conversations. The work of the Growth and Opportunity Project will be critical as we move forward as a Party and take our message to every American."

"This is a time of great opportunity for the Republican Party," said Co-Chairman Sharon Day. "I am excited for the future of the GOP and am confident this project will strengthen our cause tremendously in the coming years."

In the last result to be finalized of the cycle…  “Louisiana congressman Charles Boustany won a fifth term on Saturday by handily defeating his fellow Republican incumbent, Jeff Landry, in a runoff election,” the AP writes.

Alexandria (La.) Town Talk: “Tea party support wasn't enough to return Republican U.S. Rep. Jeff Landry to Congress for a second term after Louisiana lost a U.S. House seat in redistricting.”

“Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's comments about 47% of the population dependent on the government and ‘binders full of women’ topped this year's best quotes, according to a Yale University librarian,” the AP says. “Fred Shapiro, associate librarian at Yale Law School, released his seventh annual list of the most notable quotations of the year.”

Lois Romano writes of delusion in the 2012 campaign, including Stu Stevens thinking the Jeep ad helped them, that the Clint Eastwood speech was not a “big deal.” He also said he found it “very, very difficult” working with large media organizations to put on debates and that they shouldn’t be sponsoring them. Oh, it was Sandy’s fault, too.

The Obama campaign, meanwhile, didn’t realize it needed the help of Super PACs and thought not engaging in the first debate would have been a good idea.

This is all it costs apparently for status quo… “Campaign finance filings with the government now show that the cost of the 2012 U.S. presidential race has surpassed $2 billion, a new record,” AP writes.

“After vowing not to spend any money on behalf of Todd Akin's U.S. Senate bid, national Republicans pumped $760,000 into the Show-Me State just a few days before voters went to the polls,” Gannettwrites. “New campaign finance filings show that the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent $360,000 to the Missouri Republican Party's federal campaign committee on Nov. 1. And the NRSC —which is charged with electing GOP candidates to the Senate — sent another $400,000 on Nov. 2.”

PoliticalWire: “Mitt Romney's presidential campaign had $25.7 million left in the bank days after the Nov. 6 presidential election, Reuters reports.”

NEW YORK -- Less than a month after Mitt Romney's bid for the White House was suddenly snuffed out, his vice-presidential nominee and another top surrogate -- and fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate --delivered dueling speeches Tuesday that attempted to reframe Republican philosophy in what was a strikingly "Un-Romney" tone.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) spoke first at the dinner, followed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who was receiving an award from the foundation of Ryan's mentor, former Rep. Jack Kemp. Ryan's speech -- his first public address since the Nov. 6th loss -- echoed themes from his late October speech in Ohio on economic mobility, but little else from the fall campaign.

"We have a compassionate vision based on ideas that work - but sometimes we don't do a good job of laying out that vision. We need to do better," Ryan said Tuesday night at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC, an almost word-for-word recitation of what he said Oct. 24th in Cleveland.

It was in that policy speech just two weeks before Election Day that a glimpse of what the post-election Wisconsin congressman would look like. The Ohio speech was Ryan's brainchild on the trail, reflecting his personal passion for the topic, and the idea of an upwardly mobile society that could be built on Republican principles.

The speech was the only one of its kind Ryan gave during the 80-plus days he was on Romney's ticket, and perhaps reflecting concerns that Ryan's remarks were off the nominee's messaging, Romney held his own event during Ryan's speech that day, which soaked up news coverage.

But speaking at the Kemp dinner Tuesday evening, the seven-term congressman launched himself back onto the national stage without Romney or his advisers guiding the message.

While Ryan praised Romney by name as someone who he felt "would have been a great president," he also very publically distanced himself from his former ticket mate’s "47 percent" remarks to donors at a private fundraiser last spring.

In the remarks, captured by surreptitious video recording, Romney claimed 47 percent of Americans are "dependent upon government" and would therefor only vote for President Barack Obama and his vision of a larger government.

"Both parties tend to divide Americans into 'our voters' and 'their voters,'” Ryan said. “But Republicans must steer far clear of that trap. We must speak to the aspirations and anxieties of every American. I believe we can turn the engines of upward mobility back on, so that no one is left out from the promise of America. But it's going to require a bold departure from the approach that government has taken for the last five decades."

If Ryan was cautiously backing away from the GOP ticket's rhetoric in his remarks, Rubio turned on his heel and walked away from it completely. In his 4,185 words of prepared remarks, two words were notably missing: Mitt and Romney.

The Florida senator and Tea Party darling focused his remarks on a segment of the population whose imagination the Romney campaign tried, and largely failed, to capture: the middle class.

Praising the large and stable middle class as something uniquely American, Rubio took aim at what he called a growing "opportunity gap" between those born into the middle class and those who are left to struggle from humbler means to try and get there.

"For those of us blessed with the opportunity to serve our country in government, one of the fundamental challenges before us is to find an appropriate and sustainable role for government in closing this gap between the dreams of millions of Americans and the opportunities for them to actually realize them," Rubio said, according to prepared remarks.

"The key to a vibrant middle class is an abundance of jobs that pay enough so that workers can provide for themselves and their families, enjoy leisure time, save for retirement, and pay for their children’s education, so they can grow up and earn even more than their parents."

Compare that to Romney's own comments on what he called the "opportunity society" he hoped to create, which focused more on the idea of government getting out of the way of business, which could lift up the American people.

"I will spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of our opportunity society, led by free people and their free enterprises," Romney said in a speech in Wisconsin March 30th. "The only real solution to help communities devastated by lost jobs is more jobs. President Obama never seems to have understood the basic point that a plant closes when the business starts to lose money. So when the president attacks businesses for making money, and when his policies make it more difficult for businesses to make money, he's also attacking the very communities he wanted to help."

Romney's rhetoric toward the middle class focused, as did much of his campaign, on creating jobs. His five-point plan for creating jobs and helping the middle class touched on macro issues like controlling debt, supporting free trade and the amorphous phrase "champion small business."

That type of tone, appealing to the “job creators” more than those looking for work could have led to the polling data First Read noted this morning: Obama beat Romney by 10 points (53%-43%) on which candidate was more in touch with people like you, and, 53% said Romney's policies would favor the rich (compared to just 10% for Obama).

And while Rubio's policy prescriptions rarely deviated from Republican orthodoxy (he noted he opposed tax increases, and praised faith-based and community organizations as key to stemming "societal breakdown,") he used even his personal story -- and son-of-immigrants background -- to create a contrast with the former Republican standard bearer and paint the Republican Party as not just the party of the wealthy.

Whereas Romney infamously noted his well-to-do friends (NASCAR and NFL team owners have dubious mentions in the campaign record) and regularly highlighted successful entrepreneurs he had met on the campaign trail, Rubio closed with an anecdote of someone further down the income ladder.

"A few weeks ago, I was giving a speech at a fancy hotel in New York City,” he said. “When I arrived in the banquet hall, I was approached by a group of three uniformed employees from the hotels catering department. They had seen my speech at the Republican Convention, where I told the story of my father the ‘Banquet Bartender.’ And they had a gift for me. They presented me with this name tag, which says, ‘Rubio, Banquet Bartender.’ That moment reminded me that there are millions of Mario Rubios all across America today. They aren’t looking for a handout; they just want a job that provides for their families."

With both men striking similar notes it seems clear that at least these top Republican leaders see an inclusive message as a possible path back from the wilderness. Whether either of Tuesday's speakers will become the messenger, remains to be seen. 

Garrett Haake and Alex Moe were both 2012 presidential campaign embeds for NBC News. Haake covered Mitt Romney and Moe covered Paul Ryan and others.

Almost a month has passed since Mitt Romney’s defeat in the 2012 presidential election, but the finger pointing continues. 

Some Republicans charge that Romney was a flawed candidate, while others insist the party’s image was a drag on the ticket.

The White House / Getty Images

Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney shakes hands with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office November 29, 2012 in Washington, DC.

There’s the argument that the Romney campaign was outmaneuvered by the Obama effort, versus the belief that the country’s changing demographics ultimately doomed the former Massachusetts governor.

And then there’s the opinion of Romney chief strategist Stuart Stevens, who suggested that Republicans shouldn’t be pointing fingers at all.

But as the party begins looking ahead to the next presidential contest in 2016 and tries to learn from the lessons of November, the explanation for Romney’s loss is perhaps much simpler: all of the above.

“You win and lose as a team,” Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said in an interview on MSNBC last week. “We have to look at everything we do -- from logistics to turnout to technology to message to tone.”

Indeed, top Republican strategists interviewed for this article attribute Romney’s defeat to a combination of factors, including the candidate’s inability to better define himself, the Republican Party’s unpopularity, the country’s changing demographics and a campaign whose tactics seemed stuck in the 20^th century.

Blaming the messenger and the message
There's an adage in American politics: Don't allow your opponent to define you before you define yourself.

But that's exactly what happened to Romney and his campaign, especially when it came to his business background.

Through television advertisements, its surrogates, and conference calls with reporters, the Obama camp and its allies portrayed Romney as an out-of-touch multi-millionaire who made his fortune, in part, by taking over companies that later laid off employees or cut their benefits.

One of the chief examples: “Mitt Romney made over $100 million by shutting down our plant and devastated our lives,” a man said in a TV ad by the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action. “Turns out that when we built that stage [to announce the company moves], it was like building my own coffin, and it just made me sick.”

Yet Romney’s campaign didn’t mount much of a defense -- particularly on the TV airwaves -- beyond arguing that such attacks smeared free enterprise. In fact, just a fraction of the ads aired by the Romney campaign and its allies portrayed the GOP candidate in a positive light.

“They did very, very little to prevent or defensively rebut the image Democrats put out there of Romney as the guy who laughed all the way to the bank with the mega-millions he made buying up companies and laying you/your dad/your brother off,” said one Republican consultant who requested anonymity to speak more candidly.

“There were voters there who should have voted for the Republican, but were never going to get behind Romney because of this perception. And that was predictable from the primary stage of the campaign."

What’s more, that perception of Romney was only reinforced by his infamous “47 percent” comment, the scrutiny over the release of his tax returns, and even his campaign's message, which seemed more targeted to entrepreneurs and business owners -- rather than teachers, firefighters or factory workers.

“We will champion small businesses, America’s engine of job growth,” Romney said at the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla. “That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most.”

What was the eventual result?

While the Romney campaign’s Stuart Stevens observes that exit polls showed the former Massachusetts governor winning a majority of voters from households earning $50,000 or more, Obama beat Romney by 10 points (53 percent to 43 percent) on the question of which candidate was more in touch with people like you.

In addition, 53 percent said Romney’s policies would favor the rich (versus just 10 percent who said the same about Obama). And the Republican candidate’s favorable/unfavorable score was 47 percent/50 percent (compared with Obama’s positive 53 percent/46 percent).

“At the end of the day, messenger and message matters in American politics,” said a Republican strategist who also requested anonymity.

Party crashing

But it wasn't just Romney who was unpopular; so was his party.

In one of the final NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls before the election, just 36 percent of registered voters said they had a positive opinion about the Republican Party, versus 43 percent who held a negative view.

By comparison, the Democratic Party’s favorable/unfavorable rating in that same late October NBC/WSJ poll was in positive territory, at 42 percent/40 percent. 

In fact, the last time the GOP’s favorable/unfavorable rating wasn’t below water in the survey was back in Dec. 2010 – two years ago.

And during that time span, the party endured negative headlines involving its politicians and candidates. Consider:

• The GOP presidential candidates engaged in about 20 debates, with them often trying to prove who was more conservative on social issues, immigration, taxes and foreign policy

• In Feb. 2012, Virginia’s GOP-controlled General Assembly passed legislation requiring transvaginal ultrasounds for those wanting an abortion in the state.  

• In August, Missouri Senate nominee Todd Akin explained his opposition to abortion in cases of rape, saying that pregnancies are rare. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

• And in October, about two weeks before Election Day, Indiana Senate nominee Richard Mourdock said this while justifying his opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape: “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Both Akin and Mourdock lost their Senate contests.

What’s more, problems with the Republican Party’s brand go beyond what took place in the last two years. According to the exit polls from last month’s election, 53 percent of voters blamed George W. Bush more for the country’s current economic problems. Just 38 percent blamed Obama.

Then there’s the GOP’s problem with Latino voters. While Romney’s poor performance with that demographic has received plenty of attention -- he won just 27 percent of these voters -- the party as a whole isn’t faring much better.

In an October NBC/WSJ/Telemundo survey of Latino voters, only 22 percent held a positive view of the GOP (compared with 63 percent who did for the Democratic Party).

And by a 65 percent to 23 percent margin, Latino voters in that same poll said they preferred a Democratic-held Congress to a Republican-held one.

"The party has got to learn from this,” said GOP strategist Liz Mair. “We've now had two successive presidential elections and two midterms where the party's stance on issues that are important to Hispanics has hurt us in key areas."

And the GOP finds itself trailing on key issues – some of which are pillars of today’s Republican Party.

According to the exit polls from the election, a combined 59 percent of voters said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Sixty percent said that taxes should be increased either for all or for income above $250,000.

The good news for the GOP on the issues: A plurality of voters favored repealing some or all of the 2010 health care law, and a majority said the government is doing too many things that are better left to businesses and individuals.

Demography is destiny

Despite his inability to better define himself and despite his party’s unpopularity, Romney won white voters by a whopping 20 points, 59 percent to 39 percent -- higher than any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

As Republican pollster Glen Bolger points out, Romney also won white women (by 14 points points) and independents (by 5 points), better than a victorious George W. Bush did in 2004.

But Romney still lost in last month’s election – and by a more decisive margin than Democrat John Kerry did in that ’04 election.

The reason for this: the country’s demographics have changed.

As the Obama campaign had long assumed, the white portion of the electorate this year dropped to 72 percent -- from 74 percent in 2008 and 77 percent in 2004 -- and the president won fewer than four in 10 of those voters.

Yet he carried a whopping 93 percent of black voters (representing 13 percent of the electorate), 71 percent of Latinos (representing 10 percent), and 73 percent of Asians (3 percent).

What’s more, despite all the predictions that youth turnout would be down, voters ages 18-29 made up 19 percent of the voting population -- up from 18 percent four years ago -- and Obama took 60 percent from that group.

“So, if you win the swing groups but lose the election, that means the Democrats have a clear home field advantage,” Bolger writes. “There are more Democrats.”

“That underscores that we have to do better as a party with Hispanics … It’s simple math, but it’s hard to do. We have to start today.”

Romney even acknowledged that reality at a closed-door fundraiser in April overheard by NBC News. "We have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party," he said, warning back then that polling showing Latinos breaking in huge percentages for Obama "spells doom for us."

‘A late 20^th century campaign’

The GOP also has to start today regaining a tactical advantage in presidential campaigns, Republicans say.

Whether it was its advertising, its polling or its get-out-the-vote effort, the Romney campaign paled in comparison to the Obama juggernaut.

"The Republicans basically ran a late 20th century campaign," said one advertising expert.

A case in point was ad buying. Even though the Romney campaign and GOP outside groups outspent the Obama camp and its allies in ad dollars, the Obama campaign still was able to run more advertising spots.

That was possible in part because the Obama camp bought its ads in advance -- often at a discount rate -- while the Romney effort was buying them the week before and not getting the discount.

For instance, in the last week of the election, a single advertising spot on the 5:00 p.m. local news in Raleigh, N.C., cost the Obama campaign $550 (because it was purchased in advance), while a spot on the same program cost the Romney camp $2,665 (because it was bought the week of).

So the Romney campaign here paid four times as much for the same programming slot, a practice which in the long run negated any kind of financial advantage it enjoyed.

Another example was the placement of those TV ads. One of the contributing factors why Romney lost big among Latino voters was that the Obama campaign outspent the Romney camp on Spanish-language TV by nearly 2-to-1 (and the margin was even greater during the summer).

And finally, there's the reality that the Obama campaign's ground game was more sophisticated than the one from the Republican Party.

“Future discussions about voter contact need to fit the times,” said Republican political consultant Phil Musser, who worked on Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign and Tim Pawlenty’s 2012 primary effort.

“Traditional door knocks and robo-calls are important, but are not what major donors want to hear about,” he added, referring to constant GOP references about the number of doors volunteers had knocked during the campaign. “They want to hear that our strategies reflect the more comprehensive, bottom-up, digital approach that the Obama campaign clearly excelled at.”

Of course, one of the big reasons for the Obama campaign's tactical advantage was its head start -- incumbents (especially those who don't face a primary challenge) simply have more time to prepare for the general election.

"Having four years to plan for an election is incredibly beneficial," said a Republican strategist who worked on the Romney campaign.

Mitt Romney’s rejoining the board of Marriott.

Romney had three of the top “memes” in online searches, and none of them were good.

What happens to Super PACs when the election is over? Now, they’re trying to influence the fiscal cliff negotiations and lobby. “The National Association of Realtors is among a slew of groups clamoring to be heard in the negotiations to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff of across-the-board spending cuts mandated by Congress in 2011 and the scheduled expiration of George W. Bush-era tax cuts,” USA Today writes. “Like the Realtors, a growing number of groups racing to shape policy in the year-end talks and in the new Congress that will convene in January are armed with super PACs that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the debate and run ads praising or criticizing lawmakers.”

Is the White House’s offer really a laughing matter?... It seems to be sending two messages to Republicans: 1) accepting the middle-class tax extension is less painful than the other proposals, and 2) you need to drag us to entitlement reform… Obama hits the road, delivering remarks on the fiscal negotiations in Hatfield, PA at 12:05 pm ET… Ted Cruz and 2016?... VA GOP blasts Bolling… And “Meet” to interview Geithner on Sunday.

*** A laughing matter? After Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s individual meetings yesterday with congressional leaders in the so-called “fiscal cliff” negotiations, Republicans leaked to reporters what the Obama White House is offering: 1) $1.6 trillion in tax increases and revenues, 2) a permanent end to Congress’ control of the debt limit, 3) additional stimulus of at least $50 billion, and 4) $400 billion in savings in Medicare and other programs to be worked out next year. Republican aides dismissed the offer as “unbalanced” and “unreasonable,” NBC’s Luke Russert notes. A House GOP aide adds to First Read that the $1.6 trillion is TWICE the revenue that President Obama campaigned on (by not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy); that the debt-limit demand is a “pipe dream”; and that the revenue in the offer ($1.6 trillion) is four times greater than the spending cuts ($400 billion). The Weekly Standard even reports that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “burst into laughter” after Geithner offered the plan.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., center, accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., left, and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., gestures while speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov, 27, 2012.

*** The White House’s two messages: But is the offer really a laughing matter? From what we understand, the White House is sending two messages from the offer it presented yesterday. One, it’s trying to force House Republicans to pass the middle-class extension of the Bush tax cuts -- with the idea of punting everything else until next year. The message: Extending the middle-class tax cuts is MUCH LESS painful than the other revenue, the debt-limit demand, and additional stimulus. (Think Team Obama has learned from its past negotiating offers, when it started out negotiating from the middle?) Two, the White House is sending the message that if Republicans want entitlement reform, they’re the ones who will have to propose it. After all, the administration’s offer is very specific when it comes to taxes, but not specific at all when it comes to entitlements. In other words, the White House is saying: We’re dragging you to agreeing to higher revenues, but you guys need to drag us to entitlement fixes. It is very possible that the White House’s sky-high offer could blow up in its face. But it’s also quite possible that it forces Republicans to think long and hard about the middle-class extension and what they exactly want on entitlements.

*** Road trip! Meanwhile, as we’ve already reported on this week, Obama hits the road today, taking his fiscal message on the road to Hatfield, PA (the Philadelphia suburbs), where he speaks at 12:05 pm ET. Per the White House, the president will make his case “by visiting a business that depends on middle class consumers during the holiday season, and could be impacted if taxes go up on 98% of Americans at the end of the year. The president will tour and deliver remarks at The Rodon Group manufacturing facility, the sole American manufacturer for K’NEX Brands, a construction toy company whose products include Tinkertoy, K’NEX Building Sets and Angry Bird Building Sets.  The Rodon Group and K’NEX Brands, both third-generation family businesses, employ over 150 people at their Hatfield facilities.”

*** Ted Cruz and 2016? Wow, Sen.-elect Ted Cruz (R) hasn’t even been sworn in yet, and he’s already stoking 2016 speculation. Politico: “Texas Sen.-elect Ted Cruz advised the Republican Party to rebrand itself under a banner of ‘Opportunity Conservatism’ during a sweeping speech Thursday night that will only stoke speculation about a 2016 presidential run. Speaking before the conservative American Principles Project dinner at a downtown Washington hotel, Cruz said the GOP’s thumping in the 2012 elections was more the result of poor messaging and communication than the wrong ideology.” We’ve seen plenty of new senators come in with plenty of hype and attention (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio), but those worked hard to keep expectations down. This is something else entirely…

*** VA GOP blasts Bolling: Yesterday, we wrote that Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling -- who had exited Virginia’s gubernatorial contest, meaning that Ken Cuccinelli would be the GOP’s nominee next year -- hadn’t closed the door to mounting an independent bid. And that in part explained this pretty stunning statement from the Virginia GOP chair: "I am disappointed by Lt. Governor Bolling's remarks over the past 48 hours... The proper venue for challenging a fellow Republican is during a nomination contest. Lt. Governor Bolling chose to suspend his campaign. I hope he will take his own words to heart and work to bring our Party together." Usually, that type of message is delivered through private channels, not via a press release. Bottom line: Bolling isn’t happy, and that’s a problem for the GOP.

*** On “Meet” this Sunday: Finally, NBC’s David Gregory interviews Treasury Secretary Geithner on “Meet the Press” this Sunday.

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

Fitting for this campaign… “A power outage in Cambridge forced the cancellation of a forum tonight in which key advisers to President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney were to talk publicly about the recently completed general election campaign,” the Boston Globe reports.

Taegan Goddard: “However, I attended the off-the-record sessions on Wednesday and Thursday and will have quite a big to report once I'm allowed.”

The New Republic’s Scheiber gets his hands on the Romney campaign’s final poll numbers before the election in six key battleground states, which showed Romney ahead in Colorado and New Hampshire and tied in Iowa. And Scheiber spoke with Romney pollster Neil Newhouse to explain the numbers. “Newhouse and some of his colleagues have said that the biggest flaw in their polling was the failure to predict the demographic composition of the electorate. Broadly speaking, the people who showed up to vote on November 6 were younger and less white than Team Romney anticipated, and far more Democratic as a result. ‘The Colorado Latino vote was extraordinarily challenging,’ Newhouse told me. ‘As it was in Florida.’”

Charlie Cook on the poll the GOP should listen to.

Bloomberg/Business Week’s Josh Green reports on the millions of dollars those overly informal Obama campaign emails raised.

Conservatives are not happy with Stu Stevens.

The Boston Globe’s Johnson: “A senior Romney adviser said the two had a conversation that spanned global hot spots and their respective thoughts on innovation and the economy. The adviser said that Romney felt it was particularly important for the country to see the two candidates united after the sometimes acrimonious election campaign. The adviser, who requested anonymity to speak frankly, said Romney has never expressed any interest in a government role other than an elected position, and would more likely turn his attention to charitable or other civic works.”

Johnson also points out that the turkey chili Obama served for lunch yesterday with Romney was “the same meal Romney served up at his June 2, 2011, campaign kickoff.”

AP: “Obama and Romney together: Chili, not chilly.” AP’s lede: “Three weeks after the election, Mitt Romney made it to the White House. For about 90 minutes. After an odd arrival in which a man rushed his SUV and ended up getting arrested by the Secret Service. It wasn’t the start of a term as Romney had envisioned. But it was, at least, all on good terms with the man who defeated him, President Barack Obama.”

Politico: “There was no mention of any formal collaboration, but they “pledged to stay in touch, particularly if opportunities to work together on shared interests arise in the future,” the White House said. There was no talk of Romney joining the Obama administration, a source familiar with the lunch said.”

Joe Biden went to Costco. Buzzfeed has pictures.

David Axelrod will shave his mustache.

At the Supreme Court… It “wades into a wide array of same-sex marriage cases Friday, and its selections could put an exclamation point on a year of unprecedented progress for the gay-rights movement,” USA Today writes. “The nine justices must decide which case or cases to consider from among seven on their plate, from the right to marry in California to the receipt of federal marriage benefits from coast to coast. While oral arguments and court rulings would be months away, just the choices made in Friday's closed-door conference could doom California's troubled Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage or put the federal Defense of Marriage Act on the defensive.”

President Obama and Mitt Romney met today for the first time since the president’s sweeping electoral-vote reelection Thursday over lunch at the White House.

Over an hour -- and white turkey chili and Southwestern grilled chicken salad -- the once-bitter rivals talked about "America's leadership in the world" and "pledged to stay in touch," according to the White House.

Here’s the official White House readout:

This afternoon, President Obama and Governor Romney visited for an hour over lunch in the Private Dining Room adjacent to the Oval Office.  Governor Romney congratulated the President for the success of his campaign and wished him well over the coming four years. The focus of their discussion was on America's leadership in the world and the importance of maintaining that leadership position in the future.  They pledged to stay in touch, particularly if opportunities to work together on shared interests arise in the future.  Their lunch menu included white turkey chili and Southwestern grilled chicken salad.

The White House

Mitt Romney, left, and President Barack Obama, right, shake hands during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House. It was their first meeting since Obama won reelection Nov. 6 by defeating Romney.