Republican Undercard Debate: Live Coverage

Dear readers, we’ve started our main stage Fox Business Republican debate live blog. Check it out.

An update to our informal poll that asks, “Which candidate had you kinda forgotten was still running for president?” So far: Santorum: 72.3 percent Jindal: 32.3 percent Huckabee: 25.7 percent Kasich: 19.1 percent Christie: 4.3 percent You can continue to vote here.

Bobby Jindal uses his closing statement to stress his commitment to shrinking government. His tax plan would certainly do that: It would raise between $9 trillion and $11 trillion less in federal revenue over the next 10 years, according to the Tax Foundation. That’s a bigger cut in taxes than any candidate who has a tax plan other than Donald Trump.

There is a small upside to being in the JV debate: You actually get to answer questions. In tonight’s one-hour debate, everyone got to tackle more questions than any of the debaters in Oct. 28th main-stage debate (twice as long as tonight’s undercard one). Candidates got between seven and nine questions, meaning that they nearly all got more than twice as many as Bush, Christie, Cruz and Fiorina were asked last time around.

Chris Christie has a lot of Republicans to beat, but he’s spent the most time going after Hillary Clinton. Santorum’s one “Clinton” mention is actually for Bill.

Someone in my family has fought in every war from Iraq/Afghanistan (both wars via one of my cousins) to Vietnam (two uncles) and on and on, back to the Civil War. But as someone who gets to listen to veterans around the dinner table, I can tell you they too have disagreements about policy. They all deserve our honor and respect, first of all, and the respect of being listened to and not being spoken for.

Christie is the strongest, most memorable candidate on stage. I’d give second place to Santorum, on the grounds that he keeps managing to hit his signature issue (family values) in the middle of an economics debate. Points for finding ways to play to his constituency.

I feel like Mike Huckabee faded into the background. Chris Christie did well. Going after Clinton is always a winner. I’m less sure about Bobby Jindal. He definitely stood out, but attacking fellow Republicans is usually not a winner. Rick Santorum did fine, but nothing great.

To my eyes, Christie was the most polished and tactically sound. And as we wrote before the debate, the media seems ready for a Christie comeback story, so he might get the best press coverage. But Jindal’s gotten the most search traffic, and historically that’s been as good a predictor of polling surges as pundit takes. Still, I guess I’d say Christie > Jindal > Shucktorumbee.

All right, we’re nearing the end here — who do you think did well? Who performed poorly?

Adding to what Ben just wrote about taxes — it’s worth noting that while 43 percent of Americans pay no income tax, most of those non-payers do contribute to the federal government through payroll taxes (which are sometimes thought of as Social Security taxes but really go to the overall federal treasury). According to the Tax Policy Center, only 14 percent of Americans pay neither income taxes nor payroll taxes, and the majority of those people are elderly. Having everyone put “skin in the game,” as Jindal puts it, would fall most heavily on elderly people and non-elderly people making less than $20,000.

Point of order re: Santorum’s call for nuclear families: whether or not he counts them as such, do two-mom or two-dad families count as “nuclear”? Various definitions say mother/father kids OR “a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit.”

Mike Huckabee was asked whether he would keep Janet Yellen in charge of the Fed. While he said he would change leadership, most Americans have no clue who she is. According to a March 2015 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 70 percent could not form an opinion of her.

Remember that pretty detailed and out-there list of format demands that was circulating after the last debate? Things like: Will you commit that you will not:

• Ask the candidates to raise their hands to answer a question.
• Ask yes/no questions without time to provide a substantive answer.
• Have a “lightning round.”
• Allow candidate-to-candidate questioning.
• Allow props or pledges by the candidates.
• Have reaction shots of members of the audience or moderators during debates.

etc etc … I think this is the best debate of the election season so far, and partly because the hosts didn’t agree to the demands. Without “candidate-to-candidate questioning” in particular, we never would have had that Christie-Jindal exchange. Even the shorter questions have been illuminating. The main difference? Only four people on stage. It’s just a simple fact that with more than five or so people on stage, it’s impossible to conduct a civil and productive conversation.

This argument that the Federal Reserve is keeping rates low to help Obama really doesn’t make much sense. Beyond the lack of evidence that the Fed is acting politically, how would that conspiracy work? If low rates are helping the economy, that’s presumably a good thing. And if low rates are hurting the economy, won’t that also be bad for Obama and the Democrats?

Going back to who will drop out first — I say none of them. This seems to be a hobby for the ones for whom it is not a job. It’s like people who have a band on the weekends and a day job the rest of the time. (I’m thinking of Santorum and Huckabee particularly.)

College football is dominating the JV debate.

One has to love Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal fighting over their records in their home states. Just 39 percent of New Jerseyans approve of the job Christie is doing as governor. Meanwhile, Louisianans hold Jindal in such low regard that Hillary Clinton gets more support than he does in Louisiana, which Mitt Romney won by 17 percentage points.

Bobby Jindal says he wants everyone to pay some taxes. Most of the other candidates would shift the tax code in the other direction. They would cut taxes for poorer Americans, increasing the number of people who pay no federal income tax. (Incidentally, those are the “47 percent” that Mitt Romney railed against four years ago.)

It’s that time in the JV debate when we get bored and look up who has the most search traffic on Google. So far it’s Bobby Jindal!

I think it’s Jindal, who is the one who probably feels like he needs to gain traction with the establishment in order to have a path. (And it’s not likely to happen.) Santorum can still hold out hope of catching on in Iowa, Christie is clearly going to find some traction after tonight, and Huckabee isn’t going anywhere before Iowa.

I’d say Huckabee, on the grounds that he was the last one I remembered when I ran down the list.

Hmmm … I think probably Bobby Jindal. Paradoxically, I also think he has among the best chances of surging.

Who do you think the first of the candidates on this stage will be to drop out of the race?

Most economists agree with Rick Santorum that the U.S. should get rid of the deduction for state and local taxes, which essentially leads residents of low-tax states to subsidize those in high-tax states. But they’d also get rid of the mortgage-interest deduction, which incentivizes people to buy bigger houses than they would otherwise.

During the last debate, race came up primarily during a policing conversation near the end of the debate — not sparked by the moderators but by a comment from Gov. Christie. In this economic-focused debate, there is plenty of room to talk about race and opportunity. There’s already been a vigorous pushback against financial regulations like Dodd-Frank tonight. What about regulations on mortgage lenders, several of whom faced tens or hundreds of millions in fines for race-based inequities in lending during the mortgage crisis? And then there’s the racial wealth gap, which has persisted throughout the years. In 2013, the median wealth of a white family was $130,102, versus $64,165 for an Asian-American family, $13,900 for a Hispanic family, and $11,184 for a black family. One way for the GOP to go for a big tent — after an election that so far has bruised chances with the Latino electorate in particular — might be to address the wealth gap head-on and propose some solutions to it.

I think Nate and I are on the same page. If you look at the subjective odds we did on Monday, I wasn’t exactly high on Christie. He has problems. But if you want to give Christie a better chance of winning the primary than Romney of winning the 2012 general on the eve of the election, I think he’ll take it.

I don’t think I’m any more skeptical than Harry about the possibility of Christie having a “surge” at some point, or potentially becoming a factor in New Hampshire. He’s certainly having a very good night. But I’m skeptical about how sustainable it might be. Christie has lots of problems, as you’ve pointed out yourself, Harry. In fact, they’re not so different from Jeb Bush’s problems; Christie’s track record is fairly moderate, but he also has middling ratings among independent voters. And if he’s a considerably more dynamic personality than Bush, he’s also seen as a loose cannon and not as much of a party guy. I could buy an argument that Christie is as likely to win the nomination as Bush, but that’s sort of damning with faint praise.

I think we have chaos in the primary. With chaos, the most important thing is to win one of the first two contests, Iowa and New Hampshire.

1. Christie’s net favorability rating has risen in New Hampshire. In a field of 15, it’s conceivable he could win there with support in the low 20s. (Huntsman won 17 percent of the vote there.)
2. A social conservative unacceptable to the party overall could win in Iowa (like Ben Carson who is leading there currently).
3. If you can get the fight down to an arch-social conservative and Christie, Christie could win that fight. It’s not a probable outcome. It’s a long shot, but less of a long shot than I think most people think.

OK, let’s have a somewhat meta-conversation (while also paying attention to the debate): Harry, you’re not exactly bullish on Chris Christie, but you think there’s a path for him; Nate, you’re skeptical — let’s have it out!

Bobby Jindal says there are a record number of Americans on food stamps. That simply isn’t true. According to the Department of Agriculture, which administers the program colloquially known as food stamps, there were 45.5 million Americans receiving nutrition benefits as of August, down from 46.5 million a year earlier and a peak of nearly 48 million in 2012.

Bobby Jindal is positioning himself as the only candidate who will actually get rid of Obamacare — that’s a smart move. A September Rasmussen poll found that 52 percent of voters, regardless of party, have an unfavorable view of the law, and 37 percent advocated for repealing it and starting again from scratch. Break it down to just Republicans, and just 17 percent have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act, while 54 percent of likely GOP voters want to repeal the law.

Harry and Jody: Agreed that Christie is doing well on this stage. He has more elbow-room in the undercard debate than he did on the main stage. And with Trump not around, he’s decisively won the “who’s got the big personality” contest of the night. (Co-sign re: his constant refs to Clinton.) So: Will he end up back on the big stage? The next GOP debate isn’t until Dec 15.

If Jindal seemed to be shilly-shallying on the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, saying that he needed to read it before he made up his mind, he had good reason to soft-pedal. Republicans have mixed feelings, with a plurality (43 percent) saying that the deal is good for the U.S., 34 percent saying it’s bad, and 16 percent in Jindal’s camp, saying they don’t know.

Chris Christie isn’t the only candidate to call for cyber-warfare against China. In my recent piece on hacks and Social Security numbers, near the end, I references Mike Huckabee’s vehement call for reciprocal cyber-war.

Twice tonight, Rick Santorum has pledged to reverse the decline in manufacturing jobs. Good luck. The U.S. factory sector has been shrinking for decades. Employment has actually rebounded in recent years under Obama, but it remains far below its prerecession level, let alone its historical peak.

After CNBC’s fiasco (at least according to many observers), the Fox Business debate hosts promoted their debate as “the real debate on the economy.” So far, they’re keeping their promise (for the JV debate at least). A third of the way through, all questions have been on economic issues, two per candidate. Though Santorum, unsurprisingly, managed to find an opening to talk about incentivizing marriage.

Yeah, Chris Christie just attacked Hillary Clinton, as he has done before. Talk about knowing who your audience is. Clinton has just a 7 percent favorable rating to 90 percent unfavorable rating among Republicans, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week. That -83 percentage point net favorability rating is far below even the most unpopular Republicans.

I’m impressed at how consistently Christie has gone after Clinton, since the very first debate. It’s a no-brainer, as Nate points out, but I also think it shows he’s playing the GOP establishment game. He’s sending a signal to the donors and potential endorsers out there that he has his eye on a bigger prize. Much of the GOP establishment itself doesn’t love the direction that the primary process pulls candidates, and he may be catering to that frustration.

I mean, if people remember them, then it works in a positive way. Jindal has been in the undercard for a long time, so he figured, “Why not mix it up?” But it’s better to rise above it, just as Christie did. He’s a good debater.

Micah: Of course not. What do you have to gain by attacking someone else who’s at 3 percent of the vote? Christie’s consistently been good about understanding that attacking Hillary Clinton instead has a higher risk/reward ratio.

Is there anything to gain for these candidates in the undercard debate by attacking each other, like Jindal and Huckabee just did?

According to the Cato Institute, Bobby Jindal is right that he’s the only governor running for president who cut spending. Using data from the National Association of State Budget Officers, the libertarian think tank found that Jindal has cut spending by 1.76 percent per year on average. Jeb Bush and John Kasich increased spending by the most of any of the governors running.

I did a very informal, very unscientific poll of our staff and asked, “Which of the candidates on stage tonight had you kinda forgotten was still running for president?” The results: Santorum: 75 percent Kasich: 62.5 percent Huckabee: 12.5 percent Jindal: 12.5 percent Which candidate have you kinda forgotten was still running for president? Tell us here.

https://twitter.com/micahcohen/status/664235542712840192

To Santorum’s point on marriage disincentives, getting married can also unexpectedly raise your taxes.

Chris Christie just spoke about how could Republicans could fight against Democrats who are offering “free stuff” from the government. Keep in mind that more Americans (50 percent) than not (46 percent) want “a smaller government providing fewer services” than a “bigger government providing more services” according to a 2015 Pew Research Center poll. Moreover, the vast majority (68 percent) of Republicans agreed with that sentiment in a 2014 Pew Research Center poll.

Micah, Off the top of my head, I can think of four plausible answers to that question, none of which are mutually exclusive:

1. Santorum and Huckabee’s policies wouldn’t necessarily benefit blue-collar voters, so there’s no natural allegiance there.
2. The GOP has become a highly ideological party; even blue-collar Republican voters principally put ideological and cultural concerns above economic concerns, and other candidates speak to those better than Santorum and Huckabee.
3. Blue-collar voters within the GOP feel disenfranchised by the Republican establishment, so candidates like Trump have more appeal to them.
4. Santorum and Huckabee are old news. Maybe they are overperforming among blue-collar voters — but that could mean getting 4 percent of the vote instead of 2 percent.

Both Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee emphasize blue-collar workers’ concerns, like manufacturing, more than the average Republican candidate. Whenever they do it, I think, “Yeah, that’s a message that should resonate with the GOP electorate.” But it doesn’t seem to? What’s the deal? Why isn’t there more of a blue-collar pitch to make in this primary?

On Monday, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill offering more early and online voting options, which Democratic-leaning voters often take more advantage of when enacted. Yet the very next day, voter turnout in New Jersey hit a record low for a general election, with only 21 percent of voters showing up at the polls and the Democrats making gains in the state assembly. This earned him criticism from progressive groups and the The New York Times editorial board … not exactly strong factors for Republican constituencies. But at this point, he’s not doing so well on the homefront. According to a Quinnipiac poll, a majority of voters in New Jersey want Christie to drop out of the race, including 40 percent of Republicans in the state and 66 percent of independents.