It's been just weeks since Mitt Romney lost his job as the party's standard bearer, but the jostling to succeed him as the party's nominee is already off to a busy start. Several likely 2016 contenders are raising their profiles this week, with some offering explicit nods to a future presidential run.

Decisions made by presidential hopefuls early in the cycle can have major consequences down the line (Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed came out in November 2008), so it's not surprising to see candidates taking the immediate election aftermath seriously. Here's a rundown of what some of the big names have been up to lately:

Jeb Bush
The former Florida governor met with his old administration aides in Washington this week, prompting immediate chatter that he's laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign.

"I'm here to focus on educational reform, and that's what I'm going to tell people," Bush told the National Review when asked about his 2016 ambitions.

Even before the election, Bush began taking on a more visible role. In a New York magazine profile in October, he warned that the GOP was in danger of losing Texas to the Democrats in just four years if it didn't shape up on immigration, offering up a good preview of what his own role might be going forward.

Bush was in Washington to put his signature issue -- education -- on the national stage. He hosted a conference for his "Foundation for Excellence in Education," where he called for education reform.

Rick Santorum
The GOP has a tradition of nominating its silver medalist from the last primary contest, and Rick Santorum seems to think he might qualify in 2016. He told the Weekly Standard on Monday that he's already considering a second run.

"I'm open to it, yeah," Santorum said. "I think there's a fight right now as to what the soul of the Republican Party's going to be and the conservative movement, and we have something to say about that. I think from our battle, we're not going to leave the field."

Newt Gingrich
Gingrich looks like he's thinking the same thing as Santorum. At a book signing in Florida on Sunday, he told the Naples News that he's still thinking about another run but only after the party engages in a "very serious analysis" of its 2012 loss in order to "modernize and adapt."

Chris Christie
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced he's running for re-election in 2013, possibly against Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who's still considering a bid. Booker will have a lot to think about since Christie's poll numbers are hitting stratospheric heights in response to his handling of Hurricane Sandy. Quinnipiac pegs his approval rating at 72 percent and an even higher 95 percent approve of his storm response. Republicans grumbled about Christie's embrace of President Obama during the disaster, but he's boosted both his state and national profile immensely in the process.

Bob McDonnell

On the way out as Virginia governor after 2013 thanks to term limits, Bob McDonnell is entering sensitive territory this week by proposing an increase to the state's gas tax to keep pace with inflation. If 2012 was any indication, revenue raisers of any kind are likely to come up in a presidential primary.

McDonnell has raised his national profile in recent days as well, appearing Tuesday on MSNBC to talk about the future of the GOP, and releasing a statement about the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Bobby Jindal
Jindal has gone the farthest in promoting himself as party savior, telling anyone who would listen after the election that Romney screwed up by "dividing American voters," that Republicans needed to stop being "the stupid party," and that all of this could be accomplished without compromising the party's current positions. He's also suggested he'll take an aggressive role in attempting to undermine the Affordable Care Act in his state, which could garner national attention as its main pieces go into effect.

Marco Rubio
Considered by many in the party to be the GOP's best hope for winning back young and Hispanic voters, Rubio looks ready to embrace a national leadership role immediately. He scored some major press with a GQ interview this month, but the biggest story to come out of it was his non-answer regarding the age of the earth, a question that has tripped up a number of possible Republican candidates in recent years.

Paul Ryan
In contrast to many of the names on the list, Paul Ryan has been relatively quiet since Romney left the stage. But the spotlight is coming soon regardless as Ryan figures to be a central player in negotiations to defuse the austerity bomb in Congress. The chair of the House budget committee and the GOP's most prominent voice on budget matters, whether Ryan decides to put his clout behind a grand bargain or take a hard conservative line is the first major test of his place in the party.

While other potential 2016ers are talking about the future of the Republican Party or establishing themselves as reformers, Ryan's still largely staying on the sidelines. His biggest recent headline came when he and his 10 year-old daughter bagged some bucks on a hunting trip over Thanksgiving weekend.

Ryan plans to step back into the game soon. Politico reported last week that Ryan "will begin a new push on a more modern approach to alleviating poverty, focused on education" in a speech at a Washington banquet next month.

After two disappointing election cycles, Republican leaders demanded that conservative groups end their war on electable primary candidates or risk handing the Senate to the Democrats in 2014. This week, the groups delivered their reply: "Nuts!"

Activists on the right launched a volley of criticism at 2014's first major Senate hopeful on Monday, Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV). Capito is considered a strong contender for the seat held by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), especially if he decides to retire, but her conservative detractors are demanding a purer candidate.

It's all very reminiscent of the kind of primary fight a lot of Republicans are desperate to avoid after 2012's Senate shellacking. But the groups who helped get candidates like Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin on the ballot this year say they're ready to fight it out with the establishment again in 2014. West Virginia is just the first battlefield of what could be many.

"Congresswoman Capito has a long record of support of bailouts, pork, and bigger government," Club For Growth president Chris Chocola wrote in a press release. "She voted to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for massive expansions of government-run health insurance, giveaways to big labor, and repeatedly voted to continue funding for wasteful earmarks like an Exploratorium in San Francisco and an Aquarium in South Carolina. That's not the formula for GOP success in U.S. Senate races."

Chocola made clear that he would ignore Republican whining about his previous primary interventions in states like like Indiana, where Club-backed Richard Mourdock defeated incumbent Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) only to collapse in the general election. He noted that more mainstream candidates "the Republican establishment cheered" like Denny Rehberg in Montana, Rick Berg in North Dakota, and Heather Wilson in New Mexico, also lost in 2012.

The same day, Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund announced it wouldn't endorse the "too liberal" Capito. DeMint threw his weight behind a number of candidates in the 2010 primaries that made national GOP strategists uncomfortable. While some, like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, ended up becoming stars, others, like Christine O'Donnell, were embarrassing losers who helped tarnish the party's national brand.

The West Virginia race is exactly the kind of juicy pickup opportunity that Republicans blew in recent cycles by nominating subpar candidates. Already some in the party are feeling deja vu.

"The last time Republicans elected a senator in West Virginia was 1956," former Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) told TPM. Davis, who used to char the NRCC, said, "Shelley Moore Capito is their only hope of electing a Republican senator and a conservative this cycle. So the fact that you have some groups opposing her I think explains why we are in the minority in the Senate."

Conrad Lucas, chair of the West Virginia GOP, told TPM that while the state party wouldn't interfere with the primaries, Capito was an unambiguous recruiting coup.

"She's clearly the most popular Republican in the state -- by far -- and is a very strong candidate," Lucas said. He added that her critics on the right were "not representative of West Virginia" where Capito's reputation within the party is sterling.

Both the NRSC and Karl Rove's American Crossroads are considering a more active rule in 2014 to protect their favored candidates against extreme or inexperienced primary challengers. Capito could be a test case for this new approach if her critics on the right recruit a challenger.

The GOP's RINO hunters -- the enforcers of ideological purity who helped drive out Republican candidates that many considered more general election-friendly in past cycles -- say they're ready to go to war with Rove and the NRSC if necessary.

"Going forward, our focus will be on supporting good candidates and of course, we hope that we are not going against the NRSC or any other groups involved in the election process," Amy Kremer, chair of Tea Party Express, told TPM. "However, we will not waver on our principles in choosing candidates to support and endorse."

Tea Party Express has a history of upsetting the Republican establishment. The group backed O'Donnell's Delaware Senate run in 2010 and got behind Mourdock's primary challenge against Lugar this year. Kremer said it was "way too early to make any decisions on what races we will be involved in during the 2014 cycle," and declined to weigh in on Capito other than to say she was "aware" Capito had launched her campaign.

Social conservatives say they're ready to fight Republican attempts to ostracize them after the 2012 cycle as well. Over the weekend, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) became the latest top Republican to express concerns over the social issue debate, saying the GOP should "leave the issue alone" when it comes to abortion rights.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, told TPM her side isn't going to take talk like McCain's sitting down. If social conservatives need to fight off the Republican establishment in a brutal primary, so be it. Dannenfelser blames the problems the GOP had with its social message on fear among Republican candidates when it came to talking about abortion and other topics. Had Republicans been more proactive on social issues, they never would have been stuck "on the defensive," she said. Dannenfelser said her group will go to war with Republicans who try to back candidates unwilling to engage on social issues.

"To the extend that they want to repeat what we just saw in this election, yes, we will be insisting 'do not proclaim a truce ahead of the [general] election again.' That's what we just saw," she said. "So if the truce gets proclaimed again then, yes, there will be a very lively argument."

In the days since Nov. 6, most of the focus has been on how the GOP needs to moderate in order to improve its performance in 2014 and beyond. But with Capito kicking off the next cycle with her announcement Monday, the conservative groups who've successfully dominated Republican politics recently made it clear they're not going away without a fight.

This post has been updated.

Some Republicans still want answers from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) for his embrace of President Obama just days before the election and in the wake of Superstorm Sandy. But the tough-talking governor has won plenty of other allies for his handling of the storm's aftermath.

A Rutgers-Eagleton poll on Wednesday showed that 67 percent of New Jersey voters have a favorable opinion of Christie. That's a 19-point jump since the previous Rutgers-Eagleton poll in September. The poll also found his constituents overwhelmingly approve of Christie's post-storm stewardship, while 81 percent believe he and Obama displayed "needed cooperation and bipartisanship" in the wake of the disaster.

Two other recent polls show Christie drawing a political boost. A survey on Tuesday from a right-leaning pollster, conducted on behalf of the New Jersey Republican State Committee, showed Christie with an eye-popping approval rating of 77 percent among New Jersey voters. Meanwhile, a Quinnipiac University poll on Tuesday revealed that Christie had won widespread admiration from individuals outside his state, with New York City voters giving him higher marks for his response to Sandy than the city's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and Obama.

A report in the New York Times on Monday indicated that Christie has been forced to assuage disgruntled Republicans for his embrace of Obama the week before Election Day. It reflects a popular sentiment among many conservatives, who insist that the combination of the storm and the optics of Obama and Christie working in tandem effectively undermined Mitt Romney's chances. But the polls show Christie's post-Sandy response also enhanced his own profile. Over the weekend, he made a cameo on Saturday Night Live.

And Christie clearly hasn't lost the support of all of his party peers. A survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling released shortly after the election showed Christie as an early favorite in the 2016 Republican primary in New Hampshire.

The polls out of New Jersey carry more immediate importance for Christie, who may be challenged by popular Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker in the state's gubernatorial election next year. But Wednesday's poll from Rutgers might deter Booker, who said his decision on a run has been delayed due to the storm. Booker's favorability rating of 52 percent is impressive but dwarfed by Christie's, and the rising Democratic star battles much lower name recognition than the governor.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) raised eyebrows Monday when he told GQ he couldn't answer a question about the age of the earth because "I'm not a scientist, man."

Having a top prospect for the 2016 presidential nomination say the age of the planet is "one of the great mysteries" comes at an awkward time for a party attempting to rebuild from its Nov. 6 drubbing at the hands of voters turned off by the GOP's embrace of social conservatives. But Rubio is hardly alone among potential Republican presidential contenders. Other big names for 2016 have weighed in publicly at various times over the years to position themselves as supportive of creationism proponents.

To science education advocates, these public statements fall into two categories: craven political panders to the conservative base and expressions of actual doubt in basic scientific principles. Both are disconcerting, the advocates say, and whether or not a president stands up for science has a broader impact than the education battles where creationism most often comes up.

"It's important beyond whether somebody has a direct impact on evolution [education] because it's an indicator of the way they look at the world and who they accept as reliable guides and authorities on subjects," said Dr. Eric Meikle, an anthropologist and director of education at the National Center for Science Education. "It's very important in terms of that."

For the record, Mitt Romney actually accepted the science of evolution and opposed the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" theory in science classrooms when he was governor of Massachusetts. That puts him to the left of some of the men potentially vying to be his replacement on the ticket in four years.

A look at some big names in 2016 Republican presidential speculation and what they've said about evolution or creationism:

Gov. Chris Christie (NJ)

The oft-mentioned 2016 contender -- and self-described straight shooter -- has declined open up about his thoughts on evolution. "That's none of your business," Christie said in May 2011 when asked where he comes down on evolution versus creationism.

At a town hall a week earlier, Christie said that he believed the decision to teach creationism alongside evolution should be made at the local level. A week later, Christie clarified that this position was not an endorsement of teaching creationism. "That is not to say, as it was interpreted by some that I was advocating for the teaching of creationism," Christie said. "Folks never really have a hard time figuring out when I'm advocating for something."

The Wall Street Journal story at the time pointed out that Christie's non-answer on creationism is a departure from the governor's promise not to use an "escape hatch" on the issues:

For a politician who has built a national reputation for straight talk and not shying from a fight, Christie's demurral on creationism stands out. In the past, he has said people need not wonder where he stands on an issue.

"When you guys ask me questions, I'm going to answer them directly, straightly, bluntly, and nobody in New Jersey is going to have to wonder where I am on an issue," he said a year ago, adding: "I think they've had enough of politicians who make them wonder ... They make them wonder so they got an escape hatch. So they have an escape hatch. And I'm not interested in an escape hatch."

Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA)

Jindal, a committed social conservative, has emerged lately as the potential 2016er most ready to criticize the rhetoric of the last Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. But Jindal is no moderate, especially when it comes to evolution.

In 2008, Jindal signed into law the "Louisiana Science Education Act," a law that according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune's Annette Sisco, "cleared the way for creationism to be taught in biology class." That led groups like the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology and the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology to boycott the state as host for national conferences.

Jindal created a new firestorm around the evolution issue this summer when schools with bible-based curriculums ended up on the list of institutions included in the state's expanded voucher program. Under Jindal's education reforms, thousands of Louisiana students can use taxpayer dollars to attend schools that, as Lance Hill, executive director of Southern Institute for Education and Research, explained to Reuters in July, "use an evangelical curriculum that teaches that humans walked the earth 6,000 years ago with dinosaurs."

A biology major at Brown and a Rhodes Scholar, Jindal has endorsed the idea that local school boards should determine whether creationism or intelligent design should be taught in schools. "I don't want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from [my children] because of political correctness," Jindal said during a 2008 appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Sen. Rand Paul (KY)

Paul is expected to take up his father's libertarian-bent presidential crusade next cycle. And like his dad, Paul has often mixed a healthy dose of social conservative outreach in with his fiscal libertarian purity.

Almost exactly like Rubio did this week, Paul demurred on the question of the earth's age back in 2010. Taking questions from a meeting of the Christian Homeschool Educators of Kentucky during his Senate campaign, Paul declined to answer the question "how old is the world?"

"I forgot to say I was only taking easy questions," Paul said. "I'm gonna pass on the age of the earth. I think, ah, I'm just gonna have to pass on that one."

Sen. Marco Rubio (FL)

Rubio's comments to GQ were unsurprising when compared with Rubio's rhetoric on creationism in the past. Facing creationist protests, the Florida Board of Education wrestled with curriculum standards in 2008 that accepted evolution as scientifically sound. Eventually, the board ruled that evolution should be taught, but only as a "scientific theory." It was a compromise decision that drew criticism from the scientific community who said it underplayed evolution's acceptance as the basis for biological science and criticism from creationists worried that it didn't go far enough to allow their theories about the creation of the world into the mix. Then-state House Speaker Rubio was on the side of creationists.

After the state Board of Education ruling, Rubio told the Florida Baptist Witness that he'd support legislation modeled on a proposal allowing teachers who so desired "to engage students in a critical analysis" of evolution. His reasoning, from the Witness:

The "crux" of the disagreement, according to Rubio, is "whether what a parent teaches their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level. It goes to the fundamental core of who is ultimately, primarily responsible for the upbringing of children. Is it your public education system or is it your parents?"

Rubio added, "And for me, personally, I don't want a school system that teaches kids that what they're learning at home is wrong."

Rubio then "made a comparison to the strategy employed by the Communist Party in Cuba where schools encouraged children to turn in parents who criticized Fidel Castro."

"'Of course, I'm not equating the evolution people with Fidel Castro,' he quickly added," according to the Witness.

If Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) is building a brick wall between himself and Mitt Romney, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is building a low picket fence.

The two men -- considered possible contenders for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination -- are taking very different tacks when it comes to reorienting the GOP away from Romney's "gifts" remark, which has been universally decried among Republicans as a spectacular failure of messaging at best and a dangerous misunderstanding of the American electorate at worst. Jindal is trying to cast himself as the poster boy for the latter view. Rubio seems more interested in being the spokesperson for the former postion.

At a closely-watched speech in Altoona, Iowa, on Saturday, Rubio sidled up to the "gifts" remark without mentioning it directly but dismissing the sentiment behind it.

"[Some] have said that maybe the American electorate has changed. That what people want from government now is they're just going to vote for whomever promises them more. I don't believe that's true, I can't believe that's true. Because if it's true then the very nature of our country has changed forever. And that just can't happen. That cannot happen," he said. "I think that most people are like my parents: all they want is a job that pays enough money so that they can buy a house, take the kids on vacation every once in a while, do some things that they enjoy in life, and leave their kids better off than themselves."

Just before the Iowa speech, Rubio specifically addressed "gifts," and said Romney's remark was not that big a deal.

"Oh, I don't think so," Rubio said when the Daily Caller asked "if Romney's comments had damaged the Republican Party's hopes of moving forward into a new era." Rubio said Romney's remarks were "coming off his election."

"But you know, I think we're all gonna move on and we're gonna move forward," Rubio told the Caller.

Contrast that with Jindal's appearance on Fox News Sunday the next morning. The Louisiana governor kept up his anti-"gifts" crusade that's gained him a lot of national headlines these days.

"If we want people to like us, we have to like them first," Jindal said. "And, you don't start to like people by insulting them and saying their votes were bought. We are an aspirational party."

Rubio was a big-time Romney surrogate and was vetted to be his running mate. So perhaps it's not surprising that he's taking less of a hard line against Romney as he builds a national profile that observers expect he will transform into a presidential campaign. Jindal was one of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's most prominent surrogates during the primaries, giving him a bit more room to take on Romney now.

It's not clear how much substantive divide, if any, undergirds the distinction between Jindal's full-throated rejection of Romney and Rubio's good neighbor policy toward the former presidential nominee. Both men have said comprehensive immigration reform needs to happen, and both have said the GOP doesn't need to change any core principles. Jindal campaigned as a social conservative in September and Rubio certainly isn't interested in distancing himself from anyone in the GOP base -- he said "I'm not a scientist, man" when asked how old the earth is in a recent interview.

But with the first months following a presidential election often critical in determining what the eventual primary race will look like, this weekend offers an insight into what could be one of the divides of of the next Republican presidential primary: Who will be the anti-Romney?

They are few, but they are vocal: the pro-same-sex marriage, pro-choice, pro-tax Republican activists. For years, these groups have labored off the radar, trying to convince a party unwilling to listen that it needs to moderate on issues from social to fiscal. But after the Democrats' decisive victories on Nov. 6, the Republican Underground says its finally time to go mainstream.

In the days since the election, TPM has talked with what one could call fringe Republican activists from across the issue spectrum. Like most in the GOP since the election returns that "shellshocked" the top of the ticket came in, they're eager to see the Republican Party become more appealing to the national electorate. Unlike many Republican leaders, however, these activists say they actually know how to make the substantive changes to make that happen.

Republicans everywhere talk about a change in tone -- rejecting divisive language like Mitt Romney's post-election "gifts" comment has become the national pastime for the GOP in recent days. But even the most vocal Romney critics in the Republican mainstream have repeatedly said the party doesn't need to change substantively. It just needs a new sales pitch.

The only real policy shift to come out of the election so far is a return to support for comprehensive immigration reform that was a central plank of many Republican campaign platforms in the cycles before 2012. On other issues, there are plenty of Republican leaders who say the GOP can hold the conservative line and still win.

The Republican Underground has a different theory. They've called for the party to get with what they see as the program on issues like gay marriage and women's health for years. But they've largely been talking to themselves. Now, they say Republicans are coming to them and they're cautiously optimistic that could mean real changes for the party down the road.

• Abortion

"What happened on [Election Day] is essentially what we have been warning the party about for the last four years," said Kellie Rose Ferguson, executive director of Republican Majority for Choice, a group that supports abortion rights. The group called out its fellow Republicans in the days following the election for alienating women with its language about abortion.

"[GOP leaders] look at the polls that show that the country is essentially split on the labels, but they lack an understanding of what the issue of choice means," she said. "It's not just abortion and what you would do personally. There's a political side of it."

Making the Republican Party into a pro-abortion rights party is a tough sell, but Rose Ferguson said Republicans are suddenly a lot more open to hearing what her group has to say. The group intends to take advantage of the situation and "talk to the myriad of donors and voters outside of the party that realize we collectively as a Republican body we need to do something."

• Same-Sex Marriage

Conservative LGBT group GOProud is perhaps best known from the 2012 cycle for its tussles with the Log Cabin Republicans, the more mainstream LGBT rights advocates inside the GOP. But with a clear line drawn between Democrats and Republicans on same sex marriage this election, GOProud says its time for all LGBT activists in the GOP to work together toward the goal of getting the party in line with national polling showing public support for expanded LGBT rights on the rise.

Like the pro-choice Republicans, GOProud says its phones have been ringing off the hook since the election with Republicans asking for advice. The group suggests Republicans adopt a "federalist" stance to same-sex marriage, advising future presidential candidates to support the rights of states to make their own decisions about marriage, rather than signing "NOM's crazy pledge" calling for a federal ban on LGBT marriage rights.

"There's two types of people right now in the Republican Party and in the conservative movement," said Chris Barron, a co-founder of GOProud. "There are the Holocaust Deniers, the folks who don't think that there's anything structurally wrong...and then there are people who understand that what we're facing is what some people have been warning about for a decade now, which is a demographic tsunami."

• Moderates

Moderate Republicans -- or "former elected officials" as they're often known today -- have suffered great losses in recent years after conservatives voted them out in primaries or Democrats defeated them by painting them with conservative policies of the modern Republican mainstream. After seeing conservative stances drag down Romney and lose the GOP a chance at the Senate, one of the moderates leaving Congress this year says his type of Republican is ready to fight back.

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) announced he wouldn't run for a another term in Congress back in July. But he gained national fame in the past couple of weeks as he smacked down tea party claims that Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. In his new job heading up the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership advocacy group, LaTourette says donors have been beating a path to his door hoping to prevent the moderate GOP from being primaried into oblivion. LaTourette says the answer is a super PAC, and he hopes to get one off the ground soon.

"The goal would be that if attacked, we're going to defend," he said.

"One of the things that drives me crazy is all these new faces. Most of the guys from the South used to be Democrats. And all of a sudden they try to hop on the Republican Party," he said. "Well, I've been a Republican all my life. And to say that I'm not a good Republican? That's nonsense. Those are the people that we're going to defend."

Moderates may have several super PACs to rely on for cover in the next round of primaries. Romney's Hispanic outreach director and one of the men behind his super PAC -- which ran ads attacking candidates for being too soft on immigration -- say they're planning a new group to support pro-immigration reform Republicans.

• Women's Health

As part of the party's swing to the right, Republicans have taken a hardline against Planned Parenthood. The defenders of the organization at the edges of the GOP say they're getting new attention from the mainstream after Democrats succeeded with their "war on women" messaging, which centered around the attacks on Planned Parenthood.

"A clear message was sent," said Randy Moody, a co-founder of Republicans for Planned Parenthood. He noted that a committee in the Ohio legislature is trying to get state Planned Parenthood funding eliminated during its post-election lame duck session, a sign that not everyone in the GOP paid close attention to Nov. 6. "You have to wonder what they're thinking," he said.

His group is taking advantage of the electoral results and dispatching lobbyists to warn Republicans of the consequences that could come with another fight over Planned Parenthood funding. The election proves it's a risky battle Republicans will probably lose, Moody said, and it's time Republicans embrace Planned Parenthood supporters once again. "We're going to reach out to the RNC to get a seat at the table," he said.

• Taxes

There have been Republican voices calling on the party to drop its fundamental opposition to tax increases for years. But only now, after President Obama won an election where he called for new taxes at nearly every campaign stop, are those voices starting to be heard. Even though it might be the most sacrilegious policy shift the Republican party could take, there are signs a shift away from 100% opposition to tax hikes in any circumstance is starting to take hold.

There may not be a consensus yet on how much political capital President Obama picked up in his re-election, but a number of post-election polls suggest his victory did wonders for his public standing.

A USA Today/Gallup survey released on Friday showed Obama and his party drawing goodwill from much of the country in the wake of their triumph at the ballot box last week. Fifty-eight percent of Americans have a favorable view of the president — up 3 points from the USA Today/Gallup poll conducted right before the election. It's also his highest favorability rating in the poll since July of 2009.

The public's view of Democrats is also positive in the wake of a largely successful election for the party. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed have a favorable impression of the party, a 6-point bump since August and a more impressive showing than the 43 percent who have a favorable view of the Republican Party. Fifty percent have an unfavorable opinion of the GOP, although Gallup notes that "Americans have been negative on balance toward the Republican Party since late 2005."

Obama's increasingly strong standing calls to mind the bullish days of his first year in office before a stagnant economy and protracted disputes with Congressional Republicans took a toll on his approval rating. If the polls over the last week are any indication, all it took was a victorious election for Obama to earn higher marks for his job performance.

Rasmussen showed Obama's approval rating reaching 54 percent on Monday — his highest mark in the right-leaning tracking poll since July 2009. It ticked up another point the next day. Meanwhile, Gallup's tracking poll on Wednesday showed only 40 percent of Americans disapproving of Obama's job as president, the lowest level since early 2010. Obama's job approval has topped 50 percent in every Rasmussen and Gallup poll conducted entirely after last week's election.

The national winds at his back, Obama's post-election bump has extended to a pair of hotly contested battlegrounds as well. Quinnipiac University released two polls this week showing the president's approval rating at 52 percent in both Pennsylvania and Virginia, amounting to upticks of 2 and 3 points respectively since October.

The PollTracker Average shows the gains Obama has made in the last week, already illustrating a clear post-election trend.

Jon Stewart on Thursday had some fun with Mitt Romney's recent comments claiming President Obama won re-election by doling out "gifts" to minorities and young people.

"How on Earth did Mitt Romney find out about the extraordinary bag of gifts?" Stewart asked. So what did Obama give the lucky voters? A bag of weed, a food stamp koozie, a contraception variety pack, a Quran and a piñata filled with green cards, among other goodies.

Watch the video:

Bobby Jindal isn't done excoriating Mitt Romney for attributing Obama's win to the president's offer of "free stuff" for Democratic voters. On Thursday, the Louisiana governor told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that the former nominee was "completely unhelpful" in his remarks.

"This is not where the Republican party needs to go," he said. "Look, If you want voters to like you, the first thing you've got to do is to like them first. And it's certainly not helpful to tell voters that you think their votes were bought."

In a reference to Romney's "47 percent" video, Jindal added that Republicans needs to appeal to "100 percent of the electorate, not 53 percent."

Romney complained in calls with donors this week that he had difficulty competing with Obama's offer of "big gifts" to minorities, youth, and women such as expanded health care access and "amnesty for children of illegals." Among leading Republicans, Jindal cast the first stone against Romney's remarks on Wednesday and shows little sign of letting up now.

Jindal told Blitzer that the GOP couldn't improve its standing by "insulting folks" who voted against them.

"Look, the Republicans, we need to stick to our principles, but we need to treat other people with respect," he said. "Even those we don't agree with, we need to show them we respect them and their beliefs."

Jindal, who is widely considered a potential presidential candidate, published an op-ed the same day making similar points, albeit without mentioning Romney by name. His arguments for remaking the party in a more "populist" image only extend to messaging so far and not policy.

Audio and new quotes from Mitt Romney's postmortem calls with donors have emerged in which the Republican nominee elaborates on his claim that "big gifts" from President Obama to minorities, youth, and women swung the election.

If this audio had come out two weeks ago, the tape would officially classify as yet another Romney gaffe.

On one such call, a recording of which was obtained by ABC, Romney explained that Obama's health care law, long considered one of the president's biggest vulnerabilities by top Republicans, actually rallied Democratic base voters against him. The former Republican nominee said Obama followed "a proven political strategy, which is give a bunch of money to a group and, guess what, they'll vote for you."

"What I would do if I were a Democrat running four years from now, I'd say, you know what, dental care will be included in Obamcare ... and Republicans will say, no, that's going to cost a trillion dollars, and the Democrats will say, that's fine, you know, we'll pay it," Romney said in the recording.

Romney also suggested Obama's support for "amnesty for those that are here illegally" was critical to Latino voters and urged the party to address immigration in Congress or risk getting beaten again in 2016.

"Going forward, clearly we have to have an immigration plan, this idea of just kicking this down the field until every four years the Democrats use it as an issue to hit us over the head with is nuts," he said. "We have to have an immigration plan and program, and I certainly hope that our leaders in Washington are willing to put that forward."

He sounded more hopeful on that front than others.

"Immigration we can solve," he said, "but the giving away free stuff is a hard thing to compete with."

One of Mitt Romney's closest allies during the 2012 campaign -- a woman who was often mentioned on his short list of running mates, joined the ranks of Republicans critical of Romney's post-election "gift" comments.

If Romney's lost Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), it's hard to imagine he has many Republican friends left.

On MSNBC Thursday, Ayotte tried to get as far away as she could from Romney's "gifts" remark. The former Republican presidential nominee told donors Wednesday that he lost because minorities, women and young people had been seduced by the "very generous" Obama administration which had showered them with "big gifts" like rules calling on insurance companies to cover contraception and an executive order protecting DREAM-eligible youth from being deported.

Back when Romney's similar comments during the campaign were exposed in the infamous 47 percent tape, Ayotte defended him. In September, she called the 47 percent tape "political analysis at a fundraiser" and "not a governing philosophy."

She was not so generous with Romney's post-election "gifts" comment.

"I listened to the comments, I don't know what the context fully was. I don't agree with the comments," she said during the MSNBC appearance. "I think the campaign is over and what the voters are looking for us to do is to accept their votes and go forward and we've got some big challenges that need to be resolved."

"I don't know the full context of them, but I don't agree with the comments," she added. "The voters have spoken and they want us to work together to solve our problems."

It's a big shift for Ayotte, who was often at Romney's side during the election and was one of his most prominent supporters. Ayotte was mentioned as one of Romney's picks for vice presidential nominee, an honor that fell to Paul Ryan. With the "gifts" comment drawing fire from many sides of the Republican Party, Ayotte's rejection of the comments falls more in line with the way the rest of her party is reacting to Romney a week after he lost decisively.

Mitt Romney isn't the only Republican trying to puzzle out President Obama's victory. An internal memo from the RNC credited an array of factors with boosting the president's re-election, including demographic changes and lingering resentment of George W. Bush.

The memo, which was obtained by NBC News and reportedly presented to Republican senators this week, uses the same exit poll data available to the major news outlet and other subscribers to the data set. And its conclusions are mostly in line with party strategist's assessments from both sides.

The most fundamental factor behind Obama's win: "Demographic change is real," as the report puts it. The memo estimates 3 in 10 voters will be minorities in 2016, up from 28% in 2012, a proportion that was much higher than what Romney pollsters claim they expected on Election Day.

In a section titled "What Happened?" the memo pointed to high turnout in swing states, especially among young voters, Latinos, and African Americans, as a decisive blow. In Florida, for example, it noted that "238,000 more Hispanic voters participated than in 2008 and Obama got 60% of Hispanics."

Other stats the memo highlighted: more voters blamed Bush for the economy's struggles than Obama by a 15-point margin and Obama was seen as strong on middle class issues. The memo also suggested Obama received a "bump" from his response to Hurricane Sandy, noting that 42% of voters in exit polls said it was an important factor in their vote.

The memo contained no policy judgments, however, avoiding explanations for the loss such as Romney's hypothesis that "gifts" to various demographic groups helped put Obama over the top.

A spokeswoman for the RNC, Kirsten Kukowski, told TPM that the report was presented only as a first step towards understanding the election and was not meant to be taken as an authoritative account of Obama's victory.

"As a committee, we're going to talk to every group we can find, focus group, poll and go into a thorough review of what these numbers mean," Kukowski said.

As for recommendations, the memo primarily suggested more detailed assessments of how the Republican ground game performed and what lessons could be drawn from Obama's successful turnout operation.

This post has been updated.

The Republican critics of Mitt Romney have had enough of their party's failed presidential nominee. After Romney told donors his loss last week was due to "gifts" President Obama and the Democrats bestowed on women and minorities, Republicans are essentially coming together in a collective "go away, Mitt."

On a conference call with top donors Wednesday, Romney doubled down on the "47 percent" remarks that dogged the final months of his presidential bid. Romney told some of the people who financed his campaign he lost because the key voting blocs that voted for Obama did so because Obama gave them free stuff.

"With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift," to younger voters, Romney said on the call according to the New York Times. "Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women." Romney said made similar points about African Americans and Hispanic voters.

For conservatives and Republicans trying to make the GOP friendlier to those groups, Romney's comments have not been well-received. To say the least.

"Romney's theory isn't just wrong, it's pernicious," wrote Daily Caller conservative columnist Matt Lewis. "Here's hoping he finally rides off into the political sunset."

Many of Romney's most vocal critics after "gifts" have been tough on Romney before. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jinal (R) initially backed Rick Perry in the presidential primary before getting on Team Romney in the general. Perhaps with his own presidential ambitions on his mind, Jindal excoriated Romney Wednesday for his "absolutely wrong" remarks.

Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist who helmed Hispanic outreach for John McCain in 2008 and worked for Jon Huntsman in 2012, was also critical of Romney through the campaign for his failure to engage minority communities. She took to her Twitter feed after "gifts" to tie the remarks to his broader shortcomings as a candidate.

"Livid at Romney saying Obama won b/c offered minorities 'gifts,"' she wrote. "As if he didn't alienate Hispanics enuf while running! Look in mirror, Mitt."

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter and longtime critic of the party's lurch to the right, held up Romney's latest comments as emblematic of his failed campaign.

"Mitt Romney was very wrong to see 2012 as a referendum on 'stuff,'" he wrote in a blog post. "It was a referendum on the question, which candidate would do a better job promoting prosperity and creating jobs. That was the referendum that Romney and the Republican party lost. We lost both because voters did not believe in the job-creating magic of upper-income tax cuts - and because voters were unpersuaded that the GOP even cared that much about job creation, as opposed to wealth preservation."

The long run impact of Romney's comments probably have more to do with Romney than with the GOP. Republicans weren't too interested in rallying around Romney after he lost to begin with, and now they're much less likely to come to his defense. Romney's reupping on 47 percent could make it harder for the party to move forward, however. The "gifts" comments is getting play in Hispanic media, ensuring that one of the key groups the GOP is hoping to woo will be well aware of what Republicans are saying is Romney's final presidential campaign misstep.

The White House weighed in Thursday, saying Romney's "gifts" comments suggest he misread the election returns.

"That view of the American people of the electorate and of the election is at odds with the truth of what happened last week," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters.

Jon Stewart on Wednesday looked at the one bright spot in Mitt Romney's electoral loss. Married women are "seemingly the sole demographic" that moved in Romney's direction. And if you watch Fox News, that's because married women care about America's future, whereas single women care about free birth control and abortions.

To break down the issue, Stewart turned to Senior Women's Issues Correspondent Kristen Schaal, who is recently married. "You seem like the same person," Stewart said.

"How dare you, Jon," she said. "As soon as a groom -- my groom -- carried me across the threshold, I felt something new exploding inside me. It was concern for America's future. But single women vote with their vaginas, Jon. And they only care about one issue: the sucking and the fucking."

Watch the video:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Married vs. Single Woman Vote
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) strongly condemned Mitt Romney Wednesday night for remarks the former Republican nominee made blaming President Obama's re-election on "big gifts" for minorities and women.

"That is absolutely wrong," Jindal told reporters in Las Vegas at the Republican Governors Association meeting. "Two points on that. One, we have got to stop dividing American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent -- we need to go after every single vote. And second, we need to continue to show that our policies help every voter out there achieve the American dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children the opportunity to get a great education, which is for their children to have even better-paying jobs than their parents."

According to multiple reports, Romney attributed his loss in a call to donors on Wednesday to Obama's promise of benefits like "free health care" and "amnesty for children of illegals" to secure various voting blocs, "especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people."

Jindal said that he "absolutely reject[s]" Romney's comments and that they were indicative of broader problems for the GOP as they regroup in the wake of last week's defeat.

"If we're going to continue to be a competitive party and win elections on the national stage and continue to fight for our conservative principles, we need two messages to get out loudly and clearly: One, we are fighting for 100 percent of the votes, and secondly, our policies benefit every American who wants to pursue the American dream, period," he said. "No exceptions."

Considered by many to be a possible presidential contender in 2016, Jindal was never exactly a big fan of Romney -- he endorsed Rick Perry in the primaries. But his forceful comments mark the second time this week he's suggested that the party needs to cleanse itself of the rich guy image typified by Romney in order to move forward.

"We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys," Jindal told Politico earlier this week.