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.

As Obama and Romney have lunch at 12:30 pm ET, not everyone is moving on from the ’12 race… Romney chief strategist Stu Stevens explains Romney’s loss by essentially suggesting Obama was black and poor people voted overwhelmingly for him… As it turns out, Obama’s victory was more decisive than Bush’s in ’04… Tom Cole and the cover he gives to John Boehner… NYT: Other Benghazi-related questions get lost in all the attention on the talking points… 112^th Congress on track to be least productive Congress since 1947… And the importance of Virginia and its gubernatorial contest.

*** Moving on? At 12:30 pm ET today, President Obama holds a private lunch with Mitt Romney -- their first meeting since the election and just seventh overall according to our count. The lunch allows both men to bury the hatchet and show that this country is able to move beyond its elections. But not everyone is moving on. In a Washington Post op-ed published yesterday, Romney chief strategist Stu Stevens defended Romney and his campaign. “Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing. It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate.” It was more than appropriate for Stevens to write about Romney and the campaign after the election; in fact, Stevens speaks today at Harvard along with the top officials from the Obama campaign to discuss the 2012 race. But what’s especially striking about Stevens’ op-ed is that it doesn’t contain an iota of introspection about why the Romney campaign was unable to win a winnable race. It was an odd tone for Stevens to strike, and it will be curious to see if he’s just as defiant today at Harvard.

*** Explaining Romney’s loss -- Obama was black and poor people voted overwhelmingly for him: Indeed, the entire piece appears to rationalize that the campaign’s strategy was right. (And for the reporters who received emails from Stevens during the campaign, the tone was very, very familiar.) In the op-ed, Stevens essentially suggests Romney lost because poor people overwhelmingly voted for Obama. “On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters.” Yet that analysis ignores that those making less than $50,000 represented 41% of the electorate in 2012, and many of those people probably would argue that they’re in the middle class. Stevens also seems to argue that Obama won because he’s a black man whose campaign and party raised $1 billion. “[H]e was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?” But that also leaves out the fact that Romney was a white man who had a famous name in American politics and whose effort also raised close to $1 billion. By the way, there’s a lot of contradictory evidence to suggest the president carried the middle -- the swing suburban counties. In every swing state, the largest major suburban county tipped to the president.

*** Obama’s victory was more decisive than Bush’s in ’04: And here’s one final observation about the 2012 race. Per the excellent work by the Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman, Obama’s national lead over Romney continues to expand as votes keep on coming in. It’s now Obama 50.9%, Romney 47.4%. That’s a bigger (and more decisive) margin than Bush’s victory over John Kerry in 2004 (which was Bush 50.7% and Kerry 48.2%). What’s more, the president’s lead has grown to close to 3 points in Ohio, 4 points in Virginia and 6 points in Colorado. One doesn’t win Colorado by six points without winning swing voters; there isn’t a big-enough Democratic base to make that argument.

Mike Segar / Reuters

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney arrives to deliver his concession speech during his election night rally in Boston, Massachusetts, November 7, 2012.

*** Cole gives cover to Boehner: In today’s “fiscal cliff” news, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is meeting individually with top Democratic and Republican congressional leaders. Bloomberg News: “Geithner will meet separately with each of the four top leaders in Congress: House Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Rob Nabors, the administration’s director of legislative affairs, will accompany Geithner.” And speaking of Boehner, GOP Rep. Tom Cole -- who on Tuesday said that Republicans should extend the Bush tax cuts for only those making $250,000 or less -- did a big favor for the House speaker. Why? It gives him A LOT more space to cut a deal with the Obama White House. After all, when is the last time that a conservative (albeit an establishment) House member go to the left of Boehner? Bottom line: Cole’s move gives Boehner more negotiating flexibility than he had previously. Also, don't miss David Gregory's interview with former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, who is very critical of Geithner.

*** Other Benghazi-related questions get lost in all the attention on the talking points: For weeks now, there’s has been so much attention on Susan Rice and those CIA-drafted talking points about the attack on the Benghazi consulate. And after more critical comments from GOP senators, Obama showered praise on Rice during a photo spray of his cabinet meeting yesterday. “Susan Rice is extraordinary. I couldn’t be prouder of the job that she’s done.” But the New York Times makes a pretty good point: Lost in all of the attention over the talking points are bigger and perhaps more important questions. “Were requests for greater security for diplomats in Libya ignored? Even if Al Qaeda’s core in Pakistan has been decimated, what threat is posed by its affiliates and imitators in other countries where they have taken refuge? How can crucial diplomacy be conducted amid the dangerous chaos that has followed the toppling of dictators across the Arab world?” Also, while this hasn’t been the best P.R. week for Rice, it does look like she can survive a confirmation process. The person who may have had a worse week in these meetings? CIA acting dir. Mike Morrell.  He could end up the real political loser in all this.

*** Do-Nothing Congress? NBC’s Kyle Inskeep notes that this 112^th Congress is headed to achieve a dubious distinction: the least productive Congress since the 1940s. With just weeks left, this Congress (2011-12) has passed just 196 bills into law (and many of those have been ceremonial pieces of legislation, like the naming of courthouses). The previous low was set by the 104^th Congress (1995-96), which passed just 333 bills into law. So to avoid earning the distinction as the least productive Congress since 1947, 138 bills must move through the House and Senate before the end of the session next month -- an unlikely feat. Then again, reaching a deal on the fiscal negotiations would be a big legislative accomplishment. Also, there are plenty of conservatives who would argue that NOT passing bills actually means this was a productive Congress. It’s all eye-of-the-beholder stuff.

*** The importance of Virginia its gubernatorial race: Virginia has arguably become the most important swing state in the country (in the past two presidential elections, the state has exactly matched the national popular vote). And Virginia’s off-year gubernatorial contest has recently set the tone for the party of out of power. In 2005, Tim Kaine (D) won his race by appealing to independents and the suburbs -- a model the Democrats replicated in 2006 and 2008. In ‘09, the socially conservative Bob McDonnell (R) focused like a laser on the economy, which congressional Republicans followed in ’10 and even Romney tried to replicate in ‘12. Yet here’s the conundrum for Republicans in 2013: The very conservative and outspoken Ken Cuccinelli is going to be the face of the GOP next year. Now it’s more than possible that Cuccinelli runs a strong race that national Republicans will copy in 2014. Or it’s also possible that his candidacy reinforces some of the negative stereotypes that the party wants to erase. By the way, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling -- whose exit cleared the way for Cuccinelli’s nomination -- isn’t going away quietly. Per the Roanoke Times, he isn’t ruling out a gubernatorial bid as an independent.

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

The Boston Globe: “In a meeting that has been weeks in the making, Romney will join President Obama for private lunch at the White House just 23 days after he lost the election. It will be the first time they have met since the election, and it follows several weeks in which Romney has started to contemplate life outside of politics. It marks both an early olive branch extended to a vanquished political rival and also is a potentially pivotal moment for Romney.”

How the meeting happened: “Just before Thanksgiving, the White House called Matt Rhoades, who was Romney’s campaign manager, to see if Romney would be interested in having lunch at the White House. Rhoades replied that he would, and the lunch started to be pieced together.”

The meeting is something of a tradition, beginning in 1960 when JFK met with Richard Nixon at his Key Biscayne, FL, home.

More: “Those close to Romney say he hasn’t decided yet what he wants to do next. He is planning to move into an office within Solamere Capital, a venture capital firm on Newbury Street that was co-founded by Romney’s oldest son, Tagg, and his finance chairman, Spencer Zwick. Former Romney advisers say that he is subleasing office space, but he has no plans to actually have a role within the firm. Still, the move does indicate that Romney is beginning to lay the groundwork for a Boston-based life after the presidential campaign.”

The AP: “White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama had no specific agenda for the meeting, but he said the president would like to discuss Romney’s ideas for making government more efficient.”

Politico: “Lunch is on the menu, but that’s probably about it. For President Barack Obama, the meal he’s having with Mitt Romney at the White House on Thursday is another important post-election, post-partisan moment. For Romney, it’s a chance to make sure his last impression on the political consciousness isn’t all about the word ‘gifts.’ But like most Washington rituals, the former rivals’ post-election get-together is expected to be more symbolism, less substance.”

The meeting also comes a day after top Romney adviser Stu Stevens labeled the sitting president, in a Washington Post op-ed, as “a charismatic African American,” who benefited from the support of minorities.

Jennifer Rubin, for one, wasn’t impressed with Stevens’ interpretation of the election: “Stevens fails in precisely the way in which the campaign failed: a refusal to acknowledge real and material incompetence by himself and others on the campaign. … Look, if understandably he still wants to keep charging large sums for his services and therefore not openly confess his mistakes, that is fine. But then don’t write a self-serving op-ed.”

By the way, the guy who got the Romney “R” logo tattooed to his face and vowed never to have it removed is going to be doing exactly that. The turning point for him were Romney’s post-election “gifts” comments. “It stands not only for a losing campaign but for a sore loser,” the man said. “He’s pretty shameful as far as I’m concerned, man. There’s no dignity in blaming somebody else for buying votes and paying off people. I can’t get behind that or stay behind that.”

Kids, let this be a lesson to you – it’s going to take seven to 10 sessions that doctors describe as painful to get that tattoo off his face.

Despite talk of Mitt Romney’s momentum in the final weeks of the presidential campaign, Barack Obama cruised to a wide Electoral Vote victory and his popular-vote margin wound up closely mirroring George W. Bush’s 2004 victory.

In fact, voter confidence in the president consistently improved as Election Day neared and was nearly the identical level Bush had before his reelection, a review of data for the NBC News Voter Confidence Index shows.

President Obama’s VCI score was -11 for the month of October, exactly the same as Bush’s score in October 2004.

Despite his first debate performance and Romney’s claim of momentum, Obama never saw a drop in that period in the VCI. Obama’s VCI went from -29 in August to -15 in September to -11 in October and -10 in the first week of November.

And that improvement was squarely because Americans told pollsters in the fall they felt better about the direction of the country.

The VCI uses a combination of the president’s job approval rating, the direction of the country, and the so-called generic congressional ballot, which tracks voter preference between parties rather than individual candidates. There is equal weight given to all three questions. The difference between two sets of numbers in each question is calculated and then added up.

For example, Obama’s average job approval rating for the month of October was +2; the direction of the country average score was -14; and the generic congressional ballot was +1 for a -11.

Obama’s average approval rating remained fairly consistent throughout the 2012 campaign. It hit its lowest point (-8) right after the debt-ceiling debacle in September 2011. Combining the bad direction of the country score (-52) with the generic ballot (Republican were ahead by 3 points that month), Obama had his worst VCI score of his presidency : -63.

No president had ever been reelected with a VCI that bad. Jimmy Carter had a -72 VCI right before the 1980 election he lost. George H.W. Bush was -84 right before the 1992 election he lost.

The successful presidents reelected since 1980 – Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton – enjoyed high VCI scores. Reagan stood at +62 in 1984 before his landslide victory. Clinton was at +45 before his sweeping reelection over Republican Bob Dole.

The generic ballot portion of the VCI in 2012 also remained consistent with Democrats holding a slight lead most months.

But direction of the country is what really moved and likely buoyed the president to a second term. More Americans said they were more optimistic about the direction of the country as November 2012 neared. It went from a nadir of -56 in October 2011 to -23 in March by the time the GOP presidential primary wrapped up.

The VCI score for direction of the country stayed in the -20s through July, dipped to -30 in August and then began to break through that plateau after the parties' conventions. The score improved to -19 in September, the best since May 2011 – the month Osama bin Laden was killed.

Before that, direction of the country hadn’t been that strong since January 2010. And at that point, it was trending in the other direction.

The direction of the country average improved again in October to -14 and again in that first week of November to -13.

It’s clear that how people feel about the country -- whether it’s headed off on the wrong track or in the right direction -- is perhaps the most telling indicator of whether a president will be reelected.

Updated 2:59 p.m. ET — Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., resigned from Congress on Wednesday following a prolonged treatment for mental health issues.

An aide to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told NBC News that the speaker's office received a letter from the Illinois congressman this afternoon.

"During this journey, I have made my share of mistakes," Jackson wrote in his letter. "I am aware of the ongoing federal investigation into my activities, and I am doing my best to address the situation responsibly, cooperate with the investigators, and accept responsibility for my mistakes, for they are my mistakes and mine alone. None of us is immune from our share of shortcomings or human frailties and I pray that I will be remembered for what I did right."

The son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the civil rights leader, Jackson, Jr. had sought treatment for bipolar depression at the Mayo Clinic for much of the past summer and fall. His last vote in Congress was on June 10, and his mysterious disappearance from official duties prompted speculation about the reason for the Democrat's prolonged absence.

Jackson was first elected to Congress in 1995 in a Chicago-area district's special election, and had won re-election to eight full terms since then. He won re-election just 15 days ago by a 40-point margin in the heavily Democratic district. Jackson also survived a Democratic primary challenge this summer from former Rep. Debbie Halvorson. President Barack Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) each endorsed Jackson in the primary.

Amid his battles against mental illness, Jackson has also been embroiled in ethics allegations, which prompted the congressman to reportedly hire an attorney in recent weeks.

In particular, Jackson's efforts to convince then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to appoint him as Barack Obama's successor in the Senate have drawn scrutiny. Blagojevich, a Democrat, was subsequently convicted of having sought favors and donations in exchange for the appointment.

Updated 1:42 p.m. — A major staple of the Republican presidential nominating process -- the straw poll of Republicans at the Iowa State University in Ames -- could go by the wayside if Iowa's GOP governor gets his way.

Gov. Terry Branstad, who's currently serving his fifth term as governor of the Hawkeye State, told the Wall Street Journal that the straw poll was no longer relevant.

© Brian Frank / Reuters / REUTERS

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad speaks as U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack looks on during a news conference at the Iowa State Capitol March 28, 2012.

"I think the straw poll has outlived its usefulness,"Branstad told the paper. "It has been a great fundraiser for the party but I think its days are over."

The governor's comments earned a rebuke from the chairman of the state Republican party.

"I believe the Iowa Straw Poll is possibly the best way for a presidential campaign to organize (put in place county and precinct leaders & activate them) for Iowa’s First in the Nation Caucus," said A.J. Spiker, the party chairman. "I think it is detrimental for any campaign to skip the opportunity presented in Ames and I disagree with Governor Branstad about ending our Iowa Straw Poll."

Ronda Churchill / AP

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, left, Indiana Gov.-Elect Mike Pence, center, and Republican Governors Association Chairman and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell participate in the RGA Annual Conference on Nov. 15, 2012, in Las Vegas.

The straw poll has more often offered a glimpse of candidates' organizational strength in Iowa, which traditionally hosts the first nominating contest in a presidential contest, than a good predictor of the nominee. Candidates often spend thousands (if not more) on courting votes in the straw poll, hosting elaborate barbecues and musical acts in hopes of emerging from the event with a burst of strength.

But the winner hasn't always gone onto the nomination. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann won the straw poll this summer, earning a boomlet for her longshot bid for the nomination that fizzled weeks thereafter. Mitt Romney, the eventual Republican presidential nominee, didn't participate in the straw poll (though he stopped at the state fair during the same weekend); he lost the Iowa caucuses to former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum by just a few votes, despite not having campaigned in the state.

"You saw what happened the last time," Branstad told the Journal. "I don’t think candidates will spend the time or money to participate in a straw poll if they don’t see any real benefit coming out of it."

The event was consequential -- in a negative way -- for former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who had been thought to be a major contender versus Romney for the GOP nomination. But after Pawlenty's campaign bet almost all of its chips on the Ames event, he ended his bid for the presidency.

Still, the event is a major fundraiser for the Iowa GOP, and future candidates looking to add some momentum to their own campaigns might elect to participate anyway in the straw poll, a bit of presidential pageantry dating back to the 1980 election.

Republicans' soul searching following the 2012 election could shortchange social conservatives, who say they're hardly to blame for the party's difficulties at the polls.

The snapshot analysis as for why Republican nominee Mitt Romney and a slew of downballot GOP candidates fell short on Nov. 6 has centered on changing demographics — an increasingly diverse electorate, but also softening views toward hot-button social issues.

Republicans have always likened their party to a three-legged stool, one leg representing economic conservatives, one representing national security conservatives, and one representing social conservatives — all acting in concert to support the party. And social conservatives are arguing that opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion rights, among other issues, are as intrinsic to the Republican Party’s identity as ever.

In their reading of the election, Mitt Romney’s strict focus on economic issues and a refusal to engage President Barack Obama on social issues helped fuel his loss to the Democratic incumbent.

“If you have a party that says not to talk about social issues, it’s going to be awfully hard to convince an electorate of why we should celebrate life,” said Bob Vander Plaats, the evangelical leader in Iowa who played an influential role in that state’s caucuses earlier this year.

To hear some conservative leaders tell their story, Romney erred in refusing to engage social issues forcefully enough. When the president endorsed same-sex marriage, Romney largely demurred; the GOP nominee largely left bread-and-butter social issues out of his stump speech, focusing almost exclusively on the economy — the top issue for voters.

"I think, clearly, the Republican Party didn’t win on the issue on which it invested a billion dollars," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony list, a women's anti-abortion group.

She argued, too, that it's difficult to blame the GOP's social conservatism for four losses among House Republicans who support abortion rights: Reps. Mary Bono Mack of California, Nan Hayworth of New York, Judy Biggert of Illinois, and Charlie Bass of New Hampshire. "My point is that everyone lost. Republican candidates didn’t lose because of their pro-life positions," she said.

But at the same time, Obama's campaign and Democrats pounded away at Romney's pledge to do away with federal support for Planned Parenthood. And Republicans gave their opponents additional fodder when they tried to counter an Obama administration regulation requiring religious employers to offer coverage for contraception with a more sweeping proposal allowing most employers to refuse covering any form of birth control. Compounding matters were the controversial comments made about rape by Republican senatorial candidates Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana.

Whitney Curtis / Getty Images

Senate candidate, Rep. Todd Akin , son, Wynn Akin, and his wife, Lulli Akin wait in line to vote Nov. 6, 2012 in Wildwood, Mo.

"We have to get out of people's lives, get out of people's bedrooms, and we have to be a national party or else we are going to lose," outgoing Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, said on CNN following the election.

Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, speaking Nov. 7 on MSNBC, called Akin and Mourdock’s shortcomings “very disappointing,” saying,  “I think that everybody knows that some of the comments that were made were wrong, and it cost us at the polls."

Moreover, national exit polls found that voters in 2012 favored allowing for abortion to be legal, 59 percent to 36 percent. Obama won supporters of abortion rights by 36 points and Romney won opponents of abortion right by 56 points.

Americans also narrowly favored same-sex marriage, 49 percent to 46 percent. Obama won proponents of gay and lesbian marriages by 48 points, and Romney won opponents of it by 49 points. If nothing else, those figures would seem to mark a sea change from the 2004 election, when 13 states overwhelmingly voted to ban same-sex marriage — a topic  which President George W. Bush used to motivate his supporters that cycle.

But to social conservatives, the challenge going forward is not a question of moderating; they argue that to rip out their leg from under the GOP would be to cripple the party politically. Rather, they argue the question is whether the party is able to find a more articulate messenger of social concerns.

Dannenfelser argued that Texas Sen.-elect Ted Cruz and Indiana Governor-elect Mike Pence (an outgoing congressman) are primed to lead social conservatives.

She and Vander Plaats, who could play an out-sized role in the still-very-distant 2016 Iowa caucuses, both also mentioned Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as a leading voice on those issues.

Steve Pope / Getty Images

Sen. Marco Rubio speaks on Nov. 17 in Altoona, Iowa.

To that end, in an interview with GQ magazine published Monday, Rubio argued that it was "unfair" to expect Republicans to stop voicing their opinions on social issues.

"There are a very significant number of Americans that feel very strongly about the issue of life, about the issue of marriage and are we saying that they should be silenced or not allowed to speak or voice their opinion?" he told the magazine. "There's a way to do that that is respectful and productive. There are things we'll always disagree on, but it doesn't mean we go to war over them or divide our country over them."

"I think Gov. Bobby Jindal is going to be a very compelling candidate in 2016, and he has some of that same conservative demeanor," Vander Plaats added of the Louisiana governor.

The Iowa conservative also said he thought that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, whom Vander Plaats supported in 2008 but declined to run in 2012, might consider running again in 2016.

UPDATED Saturday, Nov. 24, 2012 at 11:45 am ET: President Obama ranks ninth among candidates for president in electoral-vote averages since 1896, according to a First Read analysis. 

Mitt Romney's 203 EVs puts him 22nd of the 44 candidates who have gotten at least one electoral vote in that 116-year history.

First Read averaged the electoral-vote score of each of the runs for president for each candidate (who got at least one electoral vote).

Ronald Reagan takes the top spot with his average EV score of 507, followed by Lyndon B. Johnson's 486 in 1964 following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is third with his average of 469 across four successful presidential runs. Dwight Eisenhower follows with an average 449.5 across his two campaigns in the 1950s.

Bill Clinton, who comes in at No. 7, edges Obama 374.5 to 348.5. 

George W. Bush is 15th with his 278.5, two spots behind his father's average of 297.

Al Gore's 266 lands him at 16; John Kerry's 251 puts him at 19.

John McCain's 173 EVs in 2008 put him at No. 24, tied with Jimmy Carter's average between 1976 and 1980.

Note: Prior to the 1908 election, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Washington, DC, did not yet count. Oklahoma was first counted in in 1908. In 1912, Arizona and New Mexico were added. Hawaii and Alaska began being counted in 1960. DC came into play for the first time in 1964. In addition, California began getting at least 40 electoral votes in 1964. In the early part of the 1900s, up until the 1930s, California was below 20 EVs. States like New York have been on a steady decline in electoral votes, while states like Florida and Texas have seen a steady increase.

Presidential candidates, ranked by average Electoral College votes

1. Reagan 507
2. LBJ 486
3. FDR 469
4. Eisenhower 449.5
5. Harding 404
6. Coolidge 382
7. Clinton 374.5
8. Wilson 356
9. Obama 348.5
10. Nixon 346.7
11. Truman 303
11. Kennedy 303
13. H.W. Bush 297
14. McKinley 281.5
15. W. Bush 278.5
16. Gore 266
17. Hughes 254
18. Hoover 251.5
19. Kerry 251
20. Ford 240
21. T. Roosevelt 212
22. Romney 203
23. Humphrey 191
24. McCain 173
24. Carter 173
26. Taft 164.5
27. Bryan 164.3
28. Dole 159
29. Dewey 144
30. Parker 140
31. Davis 136
32. Cox 127
33. Dukakis 111
34. Smith 87
35. Wilkie 82
36. Stevenson 81
37. Goldwater 52
38. Wallace 46
39. Thurmond 39
40. McGovern 17
41. Byrd 15
42. Mondale 13
43. LaFollette 13
44. Landon 8

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post incorrectly noted Harry Truman's Electoral College score. It should be 303 and is corrected above.

UPDATED Noon ET: Paul Ryan’s claimed that the “urban areas” were a principal reason for President Obama’s win. And while turnout increased in many population centers in swing states Obama won, they don't fully explain Obama's sweeping win.

“The surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,” Ryan claimed last week. “When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in, and those ones coming in as tight as they were, and looking like we were going to lose them, that’s when it became clear we weren't going to win.”

With provisional ballots counted in the last few days, the president did increase his vote total in many "urban areas" in swing states he won. On Election Night, as votes were coming in, it wasn't the case that the president was running up the score.

The president's margins weren't atypical for Democrats. They run up margins in population centers, and President Obama is no different. And certainly Obama's margins in Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is, and Northern Virginia, put the president over the edge. But they weren't unusual or particularly high.

Recommended:Obama calls Egyptian president third time in 24 hours

So far, in Ohio and Pennsylvania, in fact, his vote totals are off from 2008, though ballots are still being counted and election results will change as more votes are counted. In 2008, more than nine million votes were counted after Election Day.

The one place where Obama did increase his totals significantly in population centers was Florida. There, he gained 56,000 more votes than 2008 in three counties – Miami-Dade, Hillsborough (Tampa), and Orange (Orlando). That’s 76% of his winning margin in the state.

In other swing states Obama won -- like Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada -- Obama increased his vote totals, but not enough to significantly impact the overall vote margins in those states.

The “urban areas" vote

FLORIDA: +56,000 (Obama’s FL margin was +74,000)
Miami-Dade: +42,000
Hillsborough (Tampa): +13,500
Orange (Orlando): +700

VIRGINIA: +12,000 (Obama’s VA margin +149,000)
NoVA (Alexandria +3,000, Arlington +2,000, Fairfax +5,000, Fairfax City +100, Falls Church +400): +9,500
Richmond: +2,000 

WISCONSIN: +11,000 (Obama’s WI margin was 205,000)
Milwaukee: +800
Dane (Madison): +10,000

IOWA: +7,500 (Obama’s IA margin was 92,000)
Polk (Des Moines): +7,500

COLORADO: +6,000 (Obama’s CO margin +123,000)
Denver: +5,000
Boulder: +1,000

NEVADA: +5,000 (Obama’s NV margin was 68,000)
Clark (Las Vegas): +9,000
Washoe (Reno): -4,000

OHIO: -60,000 (Obama’s OH margin +106,000)
Cuyahoga (Cleveland): -37,000
Franklin (Columbus): -9,000
Lucas (Toledo): -14,000 

PENNSYLVANIA: -61,000 (Obama’s PA margin +284,000)
Philadelphia: -37,000
Allegheny (Pittsburgh): -24,000

Firebrand Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., said Tuesday he had conceded in his bid for re-election to Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy. 

Fourteen days after Election Day, West, a favorite of Tea Party conservatives who had sought a recount and raised the prospect of inaccuracies in the results, said in a statement that his legal team  "does not believe there are enough over-counted, undercounted or fraudulent votes to change the outcome of the election."

"While many questions remain unanswered, today I am announcing that I will take no further action to contest the outcome of this election," West said.

Joe Skipper / Reuters

Republican Rep. Allen West speaks at a campaign stop with guests at SCORE South Palm Beach, a resource partner to the Small Business Administration, in Boca Raton, Fla. Oct. 18, 2012.

Murphy led by about 1,900 votes following a partial recount in the district.

He added a bit later on Fox News: "We're going to move ahead and we wish Congressman-elect Murphy very well, but I think that now is not the time to draw the process out."

West was a lieutenant colonel in the Army, during which time he served in the Iraq war. He successfully ran for Congress in 2010, aided by the Republican headwinds that year in his challenge to Democrat Ron Klein in a swing district. He sought re-election in a slightly more favorable district following the redrawing of congressional district boundaries prompted every decade by the Census. 

The victory for Murphy adds to Democrats' pickup in the House, and disarms conservatives of one of their most brash voices in Congress. He, for instance, equated economic dependence upon government — through programs like Social Security — to slavery, and West called Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a fellow Florida lawmaker, "vile" and "not a lady."

West's departure from Capitol Hill also means that that Congress will lose one of its two black Republicans. West and South Carolina Rep. TIm Scott, R, are the only two African American members of the GOP conference; West was the only Republican member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Expanding on our election autopsy report in First Thoughts this morning about the white vote, since 1976, Democrats have never won white voters. Jimmy Carter, a Southerner, came the closest in 1976, winning 48% of it.

Since then, Democrats have ranged from 34% (Walter Mondale in 1984) to 44% (Bill Clinton in 1996).

Obama, in his first election, won 43% of the white vote, the second-highest number for a Democrat since Carter. His 39% in 2012 puts him further down the list of Democrats in the last 10 elections, but only slightly below the average 40.6% share for Democrats through the years.

But more significant: the white vote has become less important. The percentage whites make up of the electorate has steadily declined, from a high of 89% in 1976 to a low of 72% in 2012.

WHITE VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
2012: 72% of electorate, Romney 59, Obama 39
2008: 74% of electorate, McCain 55, Obama 43
2004: 77% of electorate, Bush 58, Kerry 41
2000: 81% of electorate, Bush 55, Gore 42
1996: 83% of electorate, Dole 46, Clinton 44 (Perot 9)
1992: 87% of electorate, Bush 41, Clinton 39 (Perot 21)
1988: 85% of electorate, Bush 60, Dukakis 40
1984: 86% of electorate, Reagan 66, Mondale 34
1980: 88% of electorate, Reagan 56, Carter 36 (Anderson 8)
1976: 89% of electorate, Ford 52, Carter 48

AVERAGE DEMOCRATIC WHITE VOTE SHARE: 40.6%

TOP DEMOCRATIC WHITE-VOTE GETTERS IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

1. Carter (1976) - 48%
2. Clinton (1996) - 44
3. Obama (2008) - 43
4. Gore - 42
5. Kerry - 41
6. Dukakis - 40
7. Clinton(1992) – 39
7. Obama (2012) – 39
9. Carter (1980) – 36
10. Mondale – 34

SOURCE: Exit polls/Roper Center, University of Connecticut