First Read: “When you think about it, Romney’s explanation for Obama’s victory is laughable — the president won because he successfully delivered to his voters. Isn’t that what politicians and presidents are supposed to do? In addition, Romney’s ‘gifts’ rationale doesn’t explain why he lost Iowa, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, states with older and whiter populations. What’s particularly striking here: Jindal’s criticism. He was the first Republican to step up here, and it’s an easy brave moment if you’re an aspiring 2016er. A softball to hit out of the park. Romney, sounding more bitter than big in those comments, is giving plenty of aspiring Republican leaders to now use this moment to distinguish themselves from Romney. Watch for a bunch of folks on the GOP side to pile on actually.”

Rick Klein: “If Mitt Romney really believes he lost the election because President Obama gave key voting blocs ‘gifts’ — or, if he doesn’t believe it but continues to tell people that he does — he’s doing no favors to the Republican Party, his own role in it, and the healing of divisions after the election.”

Time magazine reports Gen. David Petraeus tried to talk his mistress, Paul Broadwell, out of ambitions for political office last summer.

Broadwell had discussed her plans with “at least six new acquaintances at the Aspen conference. That evening, over drinks, she told a small group that she had been arguing with her mentor about the direction of her career. Republican moneymen, she said, had approached her about a Senate run in North Carolina. She was tempted. Petraeus, she said in an irritated tone, rejected the idea out of hand. What was her position, he asked, on abortion? Climate change? Gun control? Gay marriage? Tax cuts? Social Security vouchers? Her answers, he told her, would not fit either party, and she should not sell herself out.”

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) “forcefully rejected Mitt Romney’s claim that he lost because of President Obama’s ‘gifts‘ to minorities and young voters,” Politico reports.

Said Jindal: “No, I think that’s absolutely wrong. Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.”

“And, secondly, we need to continue to show how 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 an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”

Ramesh Ponnuru: “The first thing conservatives should understand about the electoral catastrophe that just befell us — and it was a catastrophe — is that any explanation of it that centers on Mitt Romney is mistaken… Romney was not a drag on the Republican party. The Republican party was a drag on him.”

“I’m very sorry that we didn’t win. I know that you expected to win, we expected to win, we were disappointed with the result, we hadn’t anticipated it, and it was very close but close doesn’t count in this business. And so now we’re looking and saying, ‘O.K., what can we do going forward?’ But frankly we’re still so troubled by the past, it’s hard to put together our plans from the future.”

— Mitt Romney, quoted by the New York Times, on a conference call with fundraisers.

Mitt Romney told fundraiser that he lost the election because of big “gifts” that President Obama had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies — “specially the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” the New York Times reports.

Said Romney: “In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups. With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift. Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

Ross Douthat: “There won’t be an incumbent on the ballot in 2016. But Obama does have a debt to the Clintons to pay off, and bequeathing Hillary his campaign operation might settle it. That possibility alone should inspire any Republican who hopes to improve on Romney’s showing to internalize the lessons of this campaign as early as possible, leaving plenty of time to get ready for whatever surprises await.”

Michael Tomasky: “Here’s something that happened in this election that has been largely overlooked but I think is a very big deal indeed. Trickle-down economics died last Tuesday. The post-election chatter has been dominated by demographics, Latinos, women, and the culture war. But economics played a strong and even pivotal role in this election too, and Reaganomics came out a huge loser, while the Democrats have started to wrap their arms around a simple, winning alternative: the idea that government must invest in the middle class and not the rich. It’s middle-out economics instead of trickle-down, and it won last week and will keep on winning.”

Buffalo News: “We’ve barely finished a bruising, expensive campaign for president, but it’s not too early to be thinking about who would make an excellent candidate for the presidency in 2016 – particularly if there is a conspicuously capable individual already on the political scene. There is such a candidate, and it should surprise no one that her name is Hillary Clinton.”