Joining today's post-GOP debate show are Nicolle Wallace, Steve Rattner, Mark Halperin, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Gov. Chris Christie, Bianna Golodryga, Michael Steele, Chuck Todd, Fmr. Rep. Eric Cantor, Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Kathleen Parker, Sara Eisen, Oliver Sterns and more... Let's dive into it today...
First though, there were no deaths or captures of any Dolphins yesterday on Day 57 of the hunt that happens off the coast in Taji, Japan.
I understand that spin is just that, spin. but man are the GOPer's delusional about what they have candidate wise on that side compared to what the Dem's have substance wise on that side. Let alone how subtenant the Democratic debate was compared to the one say last night.
Last night's debate was awful.
I do NOT know what the likes of Marco Rubio is thinking but then again, it is just mere spin.
I am not saying that Hillary Clinton is the answer but man oh man do the GOP candidates suck. At one point, Jeb Bush told us that he was 7 - 0 in fantasy football this year. We did NOT get those antics in the Democratic debate.
And ironically, this was the most subtenant debate for the GOP and it was still just awful.
The candidates last night just lied. From Ben Carson trying to talk about his pseudo 9, 9, 9, tax plan in so many words (really 10 as in 10%) to Marco Rubio's defense of his homes he bought in corrupt ways. Trump literally was caught in a bold faced lie and actually two lies because John Kasich was never a partner at Lehman and Trump said that he was back in 2008. (Carly) Fiorina stated that 92% of the job losses in President Obama’s first term belonged to women — a number that sounds shockingly high and if the number sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney cited the same figure during his 2012 bid. And fact-checkers back then also said the claim was misleading
It was unreal. I get that politicians lie but in this debate, there were no follow ups by any moderators to the answers to some of these questions which were just lies. I stand correct because the woman moderator did follow up with the one Trump lie.
And, there is more spin from the GOP side today as Nicole Wallace states that even though he lied, that Marco got some point across about him raising kids in the 20th Century and its because the people that vote for the GOP are clueless and in that bubble. They are so stupid that they do not even care that what is said even though it is a lie. Its wild to watch.
Jeb Bush was horrible. He told us about his fantasy football record and then he repeated it in an interview afterward. Marco Rubio compared himself to Barack Obama and John Kerry.
If anyone did well, it was Chris Christie but he is still too much for the likes of me. He scolds people and he is just so condescending.
The moderators were a mess. They had zero control over anything last night and actually, I think Donald Trump also did OK too. he did not do badly is maybe the correct way to describe his performance last night. But him, Christie and maybe Ted Cruz did well but everyone else did an awful job at this last debate.
And, in the early debate BTW, Lindsey Graham shined big time. He did amazing and that was overshadowed by the late debate. Lindsey is on the show today and so is Chris Christie.
But also, there was no substance. Everyone just said theyu would do things without telling us how. Like how will Rand Paul abolish the IRS because I would love it that happens. How would we get money to build a wall or how would we handle the immigration issue? How will we get rid of corporate taxation and they did not even get into anything about ISIS/ISIL and Syria.
But also, there was no substance. Everyone just said theyu would do things without telling us how. Like how will Rand Paul abolish the IRS because I would love it that happens. How would we get money to build a wall or how would we handle the immigration issue? How will we get rid of corporate taxation and they did not even get into anything about ISIS/ISIL and Syria.
Oh, and then the statements about the Republicans against the media or vise versa. Republican presidential candidates tore into CNBC's moderators at Wednesday night's GOP debate, issuing the sharpest attacks on the mainstream media of the 2016 election cycle.
Sen. Ted Cruz accused the moderators of trying to instigate a cage match, Sen. Marco Rubio called the media a super PAC for Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump slammed the "ridiculous questions."
In the final minutes, sources told CNN, angry representatives from the campaigns began confronting Republican National Committee officials to voice complaints about the tone and substance of the debate.
When the faceoff was over, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus blasted CNBC for asking "gotcha" questions and said the network "should be ashamed."
"I was very disappointed in the moderators. I'm disappointed in CNBC," he told reporters in the spin room in Boulder, Colorado. "I thought they would bring forward a pretty fair forum here tonight. But I think it was one gotcha question, one personal low blow after another."
He continued, "It's like they tried to design a Rubik's cube for every question to take the worst element, I think, of what the moderators and what the media should bring to the table. And all I can tell you is that while I'm pretty much proud of our candidates for pretty much sticking together, I'm very disappointed in the moderators and I'm very disappointed with CNBC."
Priebus went even further in an official statement: "One of the great things about our party is that we are able to have a dynamic exchange about which solutions will secure a prosperous future, and I will fight to ensure future debates allow for a more robust exchange," he wrote. "CNBC should be ashamed of how this debate was handled."
Brian Steel, CNBC's senior vice president for public relations, stood by the moderators' performance.
"People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions," he said in a statement late Wednesday night.
The candidates' attacks on the media were red meat for the conservative base, which already has a deep mistrust of the mainstream press. But even by conservative standards, the candidates' broadsides on Wednesday night were aggressive and unrelenting, and delighted the audience in Boulder.
The candidates' fierce criticism of CNBC -- the first sustained volley against the media of the current campaign -- immediately called to mind the frequent attacks against the press during debates in the 2012 elections.
CNBC's moderators struggled to maintain control of a debate that, according to many journalists on Twitter, they appeared ill-equipped to handle. The panelists, usually familiar with covering Wall Street and finance, were left scrambling to talk about a presidential race they seemed to know little about.
At one point during the debate, Jeb Bush campaign manager Danny Diaz began pounding on the control room door, shouting at the CNBC producers about how the network wasn't giving equal time to all the candidates, a source with a rival campaign told CNN.
The night left GOP hopefuls and reporters wishing for the previous Republican debate moderators from Fox News and CNN.
Politico's John Bresnahan joked that CNBC was frantically calling CNN and Fox "to ask how to run a debate," while Matthew Continetti, the editor of the conservative Washington Free Beacon, wrote: "Winners of GOP Debate so far: Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper."
On stage, Cruz was the night's most vocal media critic, condemning CNBC for trying to instigate fights between the candidates while ignoring issues that mattered to voters.
"The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media," Cruz said, after being asked about the debt ceiling. "This is not a cage match."
"How about talking about the substantive issues people care about," Cruz added to thunderous applause from the audience.
The audience in Boulder was electrified by Cruz's attack. Social media mentions of Cruz blew up during his attack on the media -- it was the top moment on Facebook, the social network said -- while pollster Frank Luntz said his focus group "burst out in applause at Ted Cruz's media attack."
"Ted Cruz's focus group dials [hit] 98 with his attack on media bias," Luntz wrote on Twitter. "That's the highest score we've ever measured. EVER."
The Texas Senator wasn't the only one to slam the mainstream media at the debate: Rubio, asked to respond to a Florida Sun Sentinel editorial that had called on him to drop out of the race, charged that it "evidence of the bias that exists in the American media."
Later in the debate, Rubio declared that the mainstream media was so biased in favor of Clinton that it was effectively functioning as her Super PAC.
Trump, who had predicted before the start that the debate would be "unfair," criticized CNBC's moderators for asking "ridiculous questions," and later called a question posed to Mike Huckabee "nasty."
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie looked one moderator in the eye and said, "Even in New Jersey what you're doing is called rude."
At various points in the debate, both Rubio and Trump accused the moderators of having their facts wrong.
CNBC's problems were further compounded by the network's meandering commentary between the night's two debates, which was widely panned on Twitter.
"CNBC does underscore that the only people sometimes more vapid than candidates are journalists talking about candidates," New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof tweeted, echoing the sentiments of many journalists and political operatives.
"Is this a public access channel?" asked Jon Favreau, the former speechwriter for President Barack Obama. CNN's Maeve Reston in Boulder, Colorado, contributed to this report.
Who Won the Third Republican Presidential Debate? Two senators had very good nights, while a former Florida governor struggled more than ever. Boulder might be the most relaxed city to host a presidential debate so far this in this campaign, but the stage at the Republican debate Wednesday night was anything but chill.
Hosted by CNBC, the debate was billed as focusing on economic policy, but the most important thread running through it was rancor. Candidates yelled at moderators. Moderators yelled at candidates. Jim Cramer and John Kasich yelled at, well, everyone. There were interruptions, anger, and frustration. And from Jeb Bush, there was an offer of a “warm kiss.” Maybe you had to be there—though it didn’t make a great deal of sense at the time, either.
The two candidates to thrive were a pair of senators who have been slowly but clearly gaining strength over the last few weeks: Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Rubio has emerged as something of a bettor’s favorite: Though he still lags in the polls, pundits who assume Donald Trump and Ben Carson can’t win have tabbed him as the man to benefit. He showed why his political abilities are so well regarded. The polished, poised Rubio repeatedly turned what might have been tough questions around on the questioner.
Pressed on why he had missed so many Senate votes and why a Florida paper had called on him to step down, he offered an answer about liberal media bias. When Jeb Bush tried to step in to pile on, identifying himself as a disgruntled constituent, Rubio steamrolled him with ease. Rubio also drew a question—yet again—about his own financial difficulties. Having gotten the question many times, he parried it with delight, saying it proved that he understood the troubles of everyday Americans in today’s economy. “And I make a lot more than the average American. Imagine how hard it is for people making $50, $60,000 a year,” he said.
Cruz was also in fine fettle, delivering strong answers. The Texan offered far more specific economic policies than any of his rivals, though some of those ideas were politically risky or economically suspect. Cruz recommended partially privatizing Social Security, an idea that was roundly rejected when President George W. Bush attempted it. He called for auditing the Federal Reserve—stealing thunder from Rand Paul, who stood elsewhere on stage—and for abolishing the IRS, replacing it with a postcard-sized tax return. Somewhat bizarrely, Cruz also appeared to call for a return to the gold standard.
But Cruz skipped a chance to deliver a specific answer about the budget deal under consideration in Congress right now—as did most of his fellow candidates. While the candidates discussed jobs and income inequality, their prescriptions tended toward the superficial: Get government out of the way, they said, and growth would follow. Perhaps the only policy that united most of the candidates was the need to protect existing federal entitlements for today’s seniors.
Carly Fiorina, who proved to be one of the strongest debaters in the last two meetings but has fallen off the map since the last debate, was comparatively subdued and didn’t dominate as she did before. She called for a three-page tax code (to the moderators’ incredulity), on populist grounds. She attacked Hillary Clinton, and yet again, she defended her record at HP, where she was fired by the board. Moderators seem to insist on asking this question over and over, even though her answer has remained consistent—that she was sacked in a political struggle and did what was needed to save the company.
Ben Carson was also, as usual, subdued—though so far it’s worked for him. Carson has been shaky when discussing policy, but he mostly managed to avoid potholes. However, when pressed by Becky Quick on the fact that his plan would create huge deficits, he insisted it wouldn’t, saying growth would replace it—the classic Laffer Curve argument. But his answer doesn’t conform with any serious analysis. Carson also parried a question about Mannatech, a questionable supplement company for which he cut ads, by saying it was a liberal attack and that he wasn’t really involved. That worked on stage, but it’s likely to bring new, unwelcome scrutiny to his relationship with Mannatech—a story that, by the way, was broken by the conservative National Review.
This wasn’t Donald Trump’s night: He remained silent for long stretches, and much of the time he spent didn’t make him look good. After he denied to Becky Quick that he’d criticized H1B visas, Quick came back after break and pointed out that she read the quote on Trump’s own website. (Whoops!) Early on, Trump attempted a return to his political roots—way back in June!—with a stirring rant about the need to secure the border, the issue that took him to the top of the polls. Yet just as he delivered a strong defense of progressive taxation at the last debate, Trump sounded like a liberal Democrat on campaign finance Wednesday night: “Super PACs are a disaster, they're a scam, they cause dishonesty, and we've got to get rid of them.”
Weirdly, Trump came prepared with a double-barreled set of attacks on Kasich, the Ohio governor. Kasich’s debate strategy seemed to be to build on comments he made earlier this week, when he complained, “I’ve about had it with these people.” Kasich was ready for a fight, and the first question of the night went to him—for unclear reasons, it was the classic interview question about what one’s greatest weakness is. Kasich ignored the prompt and offered a jeremiad against the unseriousness of his rivals. (To be fair, most of the other candidates also ignored the question and just gave their opening statements; only Trump really complied, saying he was too trusting.) Kasich tried to maintain this Howard Beale act throughout the debate, but he seemed to gradually lose energy as it failed to bring him much speaking time. Also struggling to get screen time were Huckabee, Christie, and particularly Paul.
But the real mystery Wednesday night was Jeb Bush. The onetime frontrunner has been in near free-fall the last few weeks, and over the weekend huddled with his family in Houston to try to salvage his campaign. His aides offered two hints about his strategy going forward: Let Jeb be Jeb, and attack Rubio. How did that play out Wednesday? Bush’s only real attack on Rubio was handily shut down early, and he never tried again. But if letting Jeb be Jeb meant Bush wouldn’t try to radiate any more energy than he had before, the candidate followed it to a ‘T’. He seemed a bit bored and listless; his answers meandered here and there. While Huckabee, Christie, and Paul lashed out at moderators for not giving them more questions, Bush seemed resigned to it.
Bush did deliver one truly memorable quotation—though memorable isn’t always a good thing. When asked whether he’d accept a deal that offered $10 in spending cuts for $1 of tax increases, he replied: “You find me a Democrat for cutting spending $10, I’ll give ’em a warm kiss.” It seemed to capture many of the criticisms of Bush’s campaign—a little forced, a little awkward, and worst of all, tepid rather than hot. Many pundits predicted that if Bush didn’t deliver a strong performance tonight, it might be the death knell for his campaign. He’d better hope they were wrong about that—because this was not a strong performance.
10:32 pm: In a debate about the economy and economic policy there were lots of potential topics and opportunities for some granular detail about ways to speed up the growth, improve wages, and work on inequality. But other than intense battling about tax plans and some conversation about social security and Medicare, candidates barely even formulated a full thought, let alone a concrete policy proposal, for many important topics. —Gillian White
10:28 pm: For viewers who stuck with the debate through its second half, Christie also had a solid performance after not getting much air time at the outset. His eruption on fantasy football won big cheers and should get a fair amount of replay in the coming days. —Russell Berman
10:26 pm: This debate revolved around more policy issues than the last few gatherings for either side. I suspect the biggest moments of this debate will emerge over the next few days as the candidates' claims are weighed, both against their policies and against reality. —Matt Ford
10:26 pm: One persistent complaint from Republicans has been that one of the RNC's signature reforms this cycle was to get more conservative media involved in the debates—but so far, the conservative participants seem to be mainly window dressing. —Molly Ball
10:25 pm: Rubio and Cruz seemed to do themselves the most good. They were quick on their feet, detailed, and effectively bashed the media to the crowd's delight. Rubio got the best of Bush, while Cruz's defense of his rivals will go over well with Republicans who don't consider him a team-player. Then again, Ben Carson has risen in the polls after each of the first two debates despite criticism from pundits, so maybe his quieter performance will be well-received by voters again. —Russell Berman
10:23 pm: Kudos to Larry Kudlow for candor. Asked what he thought of the debate his network just held, he replied, "Well, it wasn't everything I thought it would be." —Russell Berman
10:22 pm: Jeb Bush had a rough night, while Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are going to leave the stage smiling. Bush, who has rarely been at his best on the debate stage, tried to knock down Rubio, who’s been challenging him for establishment support. But he may have hurt himself more than he helped, as Rubio deftly fended off his blows, leaving Bush looking more hapless than ever. Ted Cruz returned to form, offering fiery attacks before an appreciative crowd. And Marco Rubio looked poised and polished. —Yoni Appelbaum
10:21 pm: Kasich: "I was on Morning Joe at a town hall..." He says he told a young person it's still possible to be optimistic. "We need to have stronger families. We need to know who our neighbors are. ... America is great from the bottom up, and the bottom up is us."—Molly Ball
10:20 pm: Bush's closing remarks seemed rushed, and his voice came off extremely monotonous. I'm not one to judge a person by the way he or she speaks, but I found myself waiting—even hoping—for any bit of inflection in his tone, especially after Christie's rousing tone and Rubio's lilting cadence in their respective signoffs. —Marina Koren
10:20 pm: Huckabee: "I know to a lot of people in the media this is just a game and we're the players...sometimes we're held up in contempt by people who write columns." He says the candidates are motivated by leaving a better world for their kids. "Think long and hard why we're here and hopefully you'll know we're not here for ourselves."—Molly Ball
10:19 pm: Bush: "I will change the culture in Washington just as I changed the culture in Tallahassee, and I will do so by bringing people together." —Molly Ball
10:19 pm: Rubio: "America doesn't owe me anything. I have a debt to America I'll never repay." He says he's running for president not just to save the American dream but to expand it. —Molly Ball
10:18 pm: Trump: "Our country doesn't win anymore." He cites trade, ISIS, the Iran deal. Then cites his success in negotiating down the length of the debate! A crowd pleaser. —Molly Ball
10:18 pm: The "liberal media" and the "out-of-control” size of the federal government seemed to be the biggest targets of the night. —Tyler Bishop
10:18 pm: Trump: I made the debates short again.
10:17 pm: Fiorina has stagnated in the polls, and she acknowledges it. But then she shifts to the message that she began her campaign with months ago, saying that she is best positioned to take Hillary Clinton on directly. —Russell Berman
10:16 pm: Fiorina: "What we need now is a proven leader who has produced results. ... I may not be your dream candidate just yet but I can assure you I'm Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare." It’s an interesting acknowledgement of her struggles to catch on. —Molly Ball
10:16 pm: Cruz: "Everyone talks about the need to take on Washington. The natural next question is, who has already done so?" He points to his leadership against Obamacare, "amnesty," and Planned Parenthood. "I will always keep my word and fight for freedom.” —Molly Ball
10:15 pm: Christie has really mastered his ability to look directly into the appropriate camera at the appropriate time. —Gillian White
10:15 pm: Christie: "Are you fed up with how Washington wastes your money? ... You need to elect someone who's deadly serious about changing this culture." —Molly Ball
10:14 pm: The people of the Twitterverse aren’t the only ones wondering where Bush has gone in this debate. Politico reports that Bush’s campaign manager, Danny Diaz, engaged in a “heated confrontation” with a CNBC producer outside the ongoing debate. “It’s a poorly managed debate,” a Bush campaign staffer told the publication, citing speaking time. According to running counts by NPR, Bush has barely spoken compared to his contenders, only beating Rand Paul. —Marina Koren
10:14 pm: Paul's closing statement: "I want a government so small you can barely see it." Decries the congressional budget deal and promises to filibuster it. "Enough's enough."—Molly Ball
10:12 pm: Rubio steps in to point out that the Republicans are talking about entitlement program changes for future generations, not for current recipients. He notes that his mother is on Medicare and gets a big laugh when he adds, "I'm against anything that's bad for my mother.” —Russell Berman
10:11 pm: This is Carson's pared down idea for Medicare. His idea has been to move from the social safety net of Medicare to a Health Savings Account program, which would provide individuals with $2,000 each year, a plan that Trump initially agreed with. But the plan is super controversial and has incited tons of backlash at the idea of defunding a program that provides tens of millions of seniors with coverage, leading both Carson and Trump to soften their stance on the HSA switch. —Gillian White
10:11 pm: Republicans also seem to have noticed that Hillary Clinton has solidified her status as the Democratic frontrunner since the last debate. There have been very few mentions of Bernie Sanders and his socialism, but plenty of harping on her. —Russell Berman
10:10 pm: You can't blame the CNBC moderators for its focus on economic and fiscal issues tonight, but it hasn’t made for great debating. Or, as Trump might say, it's "low energy."—Matt Ford
10:08 pm: There hasn't been too much talk of the soon-to-be speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. But he would love working with many of these candidates—with the notable exception of Mike Huckabee—who are endorsing specific changes to Medicare and Social Security. Ryan is the GOP's leading voice on entitlement reform. —Russell Berman
10:04 pm: Chris Christie’s answer on climate change displays why he might be a formidable general-election candidate. He accepts that humans play a role, that that the science should not be disputed, and that something that should be done about it. But he disagrees with most Democrats on the federal government’s proper role in fixing it—that it shouldn’t really have one. That’s a strong conservative principle that doesn’t necessarily alienate moderate voters. The political reality, though, is that he’s probably going to be swallowed up by this field long before he would get a chance to make that case. —Tyler Bishop
10:03 pm: Clearly, we have moved beyond the Tom Brokaw-led era of idolizing the "Greatest Generation" of World War II heroes who gave birth to the Baby Boomers. Rand Paul just blamed them all for having too many kids and bankrupting the country in the 21st Century. —Russell Berman
10:02 pm: While he seemed more interested in scoring points with the audience during the fantasy-football question than answering it, Christie is currently fighting a lawsuit from the big four national sports leagues and the NCAA over the law that legalized sports betting in New Jersey, which he supports. —Matt Ford
10:01 pm: Meanwhile, the Kansas City Royals posted four runs in the bottom of the 5th inning, to take a 4-1 lead. (You’re welcome.) —Yoni Appelbaum
9:59 pm: Bush looked almost giddy about getting a question about fantasy football. This was going to be an answer he wouldn't fumble! He went on to brag that he's 7-0 in his league, but the good feeling was cut short when Chris Christie bashed the moderators for asking questions about fantasy football when "we've got ISIS and al-Qaida attacking us." Huge applause for Christie, back to the background for Bush. —Marina Koren
9:59 pm: Jeb Bush fields a question on fantasy football, and brags that he’s got Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski on his squad. But it’s Chris Christie who delivers the Gronk spike, slamming the question as trivial. For Bush, it’s just another missed opportunity on a night of disappointments. —Yoni Appelbaum
9:57 pm: Great play by Christie there, as Jeb meanders around explaining that he isn't sure whether the government should regulate fantasy sports. Christie interjects angrily: "Wait a second. We've got $19 trillion in debt...and you're talking about getting the government involved in fantasy football?"—David Graham
9:55 pm: Chris Christie hits President Obama for not supporting law enforcement and blames this lack of support for a supposed rise in crime. But even FBI Director James Comey acknowledged that he had no clear proof to back up any claims of a "Ferguson effect," and the evidence from other sources is dubious at best. —Matt Ford
9:51 pm: John Kasich denounced the legalization of marijuna in Colorado in strong terms, warning of the dangers of sending mixed signals to kids on drugs. At least one watcher wasn’t amused. Erstwhile Trump adviser Roger Stone quickly tweeted:
It’s not a claim that could be quickly verified. —Yoni Appelbaum
9:48 pm: Mike Huckabee reveals he’s wearing a Trump tie tonight. A chorus of other candidates chime in. Is it made in China? Mexico? (It’s not clear where Huckabee’s tie hails from, but much of the Trump collection is, in fact, made in Mexico.)—Yoni Appelbaum
9:48 pm: Not much conversation thus far about job creation other than Trump's declaration that he's created tens of thousands of jobs. Would've expected that idea to be sold harder this go around. —Gillian White
9:47 pm: Donald Trump calls gun-free zones “target practice for the sickos and the mentally ill.” He says he’d change the policies at Trump resorts that currently bar firearms. —Yoni Appelbaum
9:44 pm: I'd like to see a pollster ask this question of voters: When a candidate says they plan to abolish the IRS, do you believe them? Or do you think they're just trying to be amusing? The line always gets a big applause, but it may be the single most unrealistic campaign proposal you'll ever hear. —Russell Berman
9:42 pm: There was a candidate who wanted to complexify the tax code: Lincoln Chafee had a plan to add a new bracket for high earners. But he's out of the race now. —Molly Ball
9:41 pm: Everyone seems to have ideas about how to simply the tax process—like really simplify it. Earlier in the night, Fiorina said regulations should be long enough to fit on three single pages. Cruz now says citizens should be able to fill out their taxes on a postcard. —Marina Koren
9:40 pm: If the presidential candidates get rid of the IRS, as Ted Cruz just urged, who will register their superPACs for tax-exempt status? —Matt Ford
9:39 pm: Cruz: Let's eliminate the IRS and have everyone do their taxes on a postcard. —Gillian White
9:38 pm: Rand Paul apparently didn't learn the rules about who gets to follow up. Becky Quick shuts him down: "It was at the moderator discretion." But Quintanilla, a softie, lets him talk anyway. —David Graham
9:36 pm: As Jeb Bush spoke about the economy, a sidebar appeared on the screen that described him as "Barclays' Consultant: '08-'14" and "Lehman Brothers Consultant: '07-'08." —Matt Ford
9:34 pm: Huckabee totally just three-upped Joe Biden by calling for a cure not only for cancer but for heart disease, Alzheimer's, and diabetes as well. —Russell Berman
9:34 pm: Huckabee's answer on how he'd reduce income inequality involves reducing regulation, getting government out of the way, and improving public health. —Gillian White
9:32 pm: Huckabee compared today's runaway blimp to the federal government "full of gas, destroying everything in its path." Not bad! —Molly Ball
9:31 pm: "Crap" isn't really a swear, but it sounds like one coming from mild-mannered Ben Carson. —Russell Berman
9:31 pm: Carson: "All of this too big to fail stuff, and picking winners and losers, this is a bunch of crap." —David Graham
9:31 pm: My colleague Peter Beinart noted earlier this week how Trump and Carson could benefit from the backlash against corruption and Trump’s comments on super PACs is perhaps a reminder of that. In a New York Times survey, 80 percent of Republicans said “money has too much influence” in America’s political system. Such a large majority, certainly gives Trump something to tap into there. —Priscilla Alvarez
9:31 pm: It’s been more than a century since the Republican Party tied its fortunes to the gold standard, as Ted Cruz just tried to do. The last time around, Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan thundered back:
We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
Bryan, of course, went on to lose. But there’s reason to doubt this will be a winning issue for the GOP in the 21st century, as it was in the 19th. —Yoni Appelbaum
9:29 pm: Ted Cruz just did something quite at odds with his Washington outsider persona: He called for the creation of a "commission" to study monetary policy. As Barack Obama pointed out in 2008, commissions are what D.C. politicians propose when they don't actually have a solution to a problem. (Obama then went on to create several of them as president.) —Russell Berman
9:29 pm: Ted Cruz has been openly going after Rand Paul's voters lately, and his call to audit the Fed was a frontal appeal for their support. —Molly Ball
9:28 pm: The moderators asked Ben Carson about his relationship with Mannatech, a controversial medical supplement company. Carson downplayed his ties to the company and even says they used his image on their homepage without his permission. But Carson has worked with the company since 2004 and even appeared in videos on their behalf in recent years. Expect this to be an issue for the current Iowa frontrunner tomorrow. —Matt Ford
9:27 pm: Rubio is the first to bring up Benghazi, and he accuses Hillary Clinton of lying. But he says she'll get away with because of the press: "Democrats have the best super PAC: the mainstream media." —David Graham
9:26 pm: It's Trump the liberal populist again: "Super PACs are a disaster, they're a scam, they cause dishonesty, and we've got to get rid of them." This is as strong as anything the Democrats said in their debate. —David Graham
9:24 pm: Donald Trump tries to make some news, noting that he’s been outspent to this point. “I will be putting up tremendous amounts of money,” he says. But this is a promise he’s made before, and he has yet to pony up the cash necessary to mount a television-advertising campaign. —Yoni Appelbaum
9:23 pm: A Cruz-Rubio ticket would be an interesting combo. Many Democrats seem to fear Rubio in a general election, but would love nothing more than to run against Cruz. —Russell Berman
9:21 pm: Erick Erickson says Rubio and Cruz are winning, and many others seem to agree. —Molly Ball
9:20 pm: Here’s some background from the National Review on Mannatech, the questionable supplement company Ben Carson was just asked about. —David Graham
9:19 pm: "It's those people who are trying to divide us who are the enemies," Ben Carson just said. It’s a hilariously ironic statement. Like my favorite Tom Lehrer line: "I know there are people who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!" —Molly Ball
9:18 pm: Ben Carson says he believes the Constitution "protects everyone, regardless of sexual orientation." At face value, this is broader than existing laws in most states, which don't protect LGBT employees from firing or housing discrimination. —Matt Ford
9:17 pm: Fiorina goes after Hillary Clinton in an answer to a question about women in the workplace, something that worked well for her in the last debate. “It is the height of hypocrisy for Mrs. Clinton to talk about being the first woman president,” she said, “when her policies have been demonstrably bad.” —Marina Koren
9:17 pm: Cruz's answer on the gender wage gap encapsulates the frustration many Republicans have with their party at the moment. He began by saying it's something to be addressed but then pivoted to blaming Democrats and never got around to offering a conservative solution. —Russell Berman
9:16 pm: Carly Fiorina, whose campaign has been so buoyed by her terrific debate performances, seems somewhat subdued tonight. —Molly Ball
9:15 pm: Cruz on the gender-wage gap: "In my family there are a lot of single moms." He goes on tangent about his father leaving and then returning thanks to Bible study. But he presents absolutely no plan to close the gender-wage gap. —Gillian White
9:14 pm: John Kasich's biggest conservative plank—and the thing that he hopes will bring conservatives to look past his heterodoxies on Obamacare and other things—is his balanced-budget amendment. He talks about it at every turn, but it's hardly made it into the conversation so far. —David Graham
9:13 pm: John Kasich came out on stage hopping mad and channeling his anger. I'd say that an hour or so in, he's down to "somewhat annoyed." —David Graham
9:11 pm: What is it with all these bartenders who turned out future Republican politicians in the middle of the 20th century? Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John Boehner all had fathers who either owned or tended bars. —Russell Berman
9:10 pm: The moderators are now discovering what Jeb Bush learned at his considerable expense: Rubio is not only prepared for attacks, he relishes them, using them to showcase his narrative. —Yoni Appelbaum
9:09 pm: At this point, questions about Rubio's financial struggles are just a gift. He's really polished his answer about he didn't inherit money and understands the struggles of everyday people. —David Graham
9:08 pm: Fiorina explaining crony capitalism: "Government causes a problem and then steps into solve a problem." She says big government is behind big banks, big drug companies, and student-loan escalation. —Gillian White
9:08 pm: That awful answer just encapsulated Jeb Bush's terrible inability to ad-lib. Awkward, nonsensical, kind of gross. He just doesn't think on his feet well. He seems to be groping for words, and then he finds exactly the wrong ones. —Moll Ball
9:07 pm: Bush: "You find a Democrat that's for cutting spending $10? I’ll give 'em a warm kiss."
‘Warm kiss’ is the phrase of the night. —David Graham
9:05 pm: It's pretty remarkable that Chris Christie describes David Petraeus' low-key plea deal as an example of overzealous prosecution. Most observers thought Petraeus got off easy for sharing classified information with his mistress. —David Graham
9:02 pm: Jim Cramer starts posing questions. His over-animated, melodramatic, oddly loud questions feel out of place. But his questions themselves are sharp, pressing Carson on federal intervention to bar price-gouging for lifesaving drugs, and former prosecutor Christie on going after GM executives. —Yoni Appelbaum
9:01 pm: Commentators on Twitter are roundly panning the debate so far, with conservatives up in arms at the perceived liberal bias of the questions and politicos of all stripes rolling their eyes at this bankruptcy question, which we've heard Trump answer many times before. —Molly Ball
9:00 pm: Right, Trump got all the sound-bites he'll need out of this debate in the first 10 minutes. They'll be replayed so many times that viewers will think he spoke much more than he did. —Russell Berman
8:58 pm: Trump has actually never had a great debate performance. He's always erratic and only intermittently engaged. But he seems to understand that people remember the parts where they saw you, not the parts where they didn't. —Molly Ball
8:57 pm: Molly, that's completely right. But one candidate I didn't expect to disappear so quickly—Donald Trump. Once Trump got that random dig in at Kasich, he faded quickly. Much of that can be attributed to the moderators' line of questioning. In previous debates, some moderators seemed almost transfixed by Trump, asking him question after question and framing inquiries to others in the context of Trump's remarks. Are we nearing the Trump flame-out? —Marina Koren
8:57 pm: With 10 candidates onstage, it's always going to feel like someone is disappearing. It’s not the candidates' fault. —Molly Ball
8:55 pm: One clear sign of the demographics of the contemporary GOP? Ted Cruz’s forthright proposal to leave benefits intact for today’s seniors, gradually reducing them for the generations that are presently working to fund those benefits. That’s a proposal likely to be received very differently by younger voters than current retirees. —Yoni Appelbaum
8:54 pm: We're in Colorado, so it was only a matter of time before someone made a pot brownie joke. Didn't see it coming from Ted Cruz, though. —Marina Koren
8:54 pm: Christie and Huckabee agree that the government has lied to American people about social security and stolen their money. But neither are providing details about how to fix the problem of a dwindling retirement funds. —Gillian White
8:53 pm: But Huckabee is not alone. Kasich defended medicare and medicaid earlier, and Trump regularly promises to keep Social Security intact. —Molly Ball
8:52 pm: Mike Huckabee is a fascinating presence on these stages, because he is perhaps the strongest voice in defense of entitlements in the field. "This is a matter not of math. This is a matter of morality." —David Graham
8:51 pm: Paul: "You know what I'm worried about? Not keeping the government open. I'm worried about bankrupting the American people." —David Graham
8:51 pm: A reminder that Ted Cruz was on the debate team at Princeton. Sure, he once read Green Eggs and Ham from the Senate floor in the middle of a government shutdown, but no one can deny he's good at this—especially after witnessing Bush's weak attempt to rebuff Rubio a few minutes ago. Bush may be polling ahead of Cruz, but Cruz is orating ahead of Bush. —Marina Koren
8:51 pm: Paul says that the debt ceiling conversation should be used as a time to force budgetary reform. But says that hasn't and probably won't happen. —Gillian White
8:50 pm: Cruz also claimed the primary was not a cage match, but if this isn't an enclosed battle from which only one person emerges alive, I don't know what it is. —Molly Ball
8:49 pm: Ted Cruz's all-out assault on the media is entirely about starting the long process of trying to win back the love of Republicans who think his antics have gone too far and hurt the party. By defending his GOP rivals and attacking the soft target of the media, Cruz makes a small gesture toward party unity. —Russell Berman
8:49 pm: This is the heat of irony: Cruz gets huge cheers for tearing into the media, complaining that the media wants the candidates to tear into each other rather than discuss substance. But Cruz uses up his time without ever answering the question asked—which was a substantive one about the debt ceiling. —David Graham
8:47 pm: The much-hyped Bush-Rubio showdown is going to be one of the big moments out of this debate, and the near-universal consensus seems to be that Rubio won it handily. Bush is just not a nimble debater, and once he'd gotten his prepared line out, he wasn't equipped to respond to Rubio's parry. —Molly Ball
8:46 pm: The candidates seem to be competing for the affections of the crowd, and viewers at home, by attacking the one thing they can all agree to hate—the media. Ted Cruz delivers a particularly withering fusillade, drawing raucous cheers while evading questions. CNBC had billed this as a debate in which its moderators would grill the candidates; instead, it’s the candidates who are roasting the moderators. —Yoni Appelbaum
8:45 pm: Fiorina keeps getting asked about her firing at HP—and it's particularly pointed here, on CNBC. Her answer remains fairly consistent: We did what we had to do to save the company, it could have been much worse, and my firing was all about politics. —David Graham
8:43 pm: Fiorina is questioned about her leadership skills, based on the poor stock performance of HP during her tenure. Continuing a long tradition, she compares leading the United States with leading a private company. —Gillian White
8:43 pm: I didn't hear any cheers for Bush's attack on Rubio. But Rubio got cheers for accusing Bush of playing politics by attacking him. —Molly Ball
8:42 pm: Rubio gets asked about today's blistering editorial from the Fort-Lauderdale-based Sun Sentinel that called for him to resign, saying that the lawmaker's focus on his campaign has eclipsed his Senate responsibilities. Rubio indeed has one of the worst voting records in the Senate. In 2014, he ranked among the top 15 lawmakers who missed the most votes. Since January, he has skipped nearly a third of the votes the chamber has held; between July and September, he missed more than half. The question created a great opening for Jeb Bush to—finally, he must be thinking—speak. (Earlier today, the super PAC supporting Bush’s campaign launched a Twitter account called @IsMarcoWorking, created for the sole purpose of trolling Rubio.) —Marina Koren
8:41 pm: Hillary Clinton and her Republican rivals each have distinct ways of playing the victim. Clinton often blames questions about her record and judgment on Republicans out to get her. Rubio quickly blamed criticism of his lackluster voting record in the Senate on "media bias." In front of a friendly debate crowd, it worked: He got a huge cheer. —Russell Berman
8:41 pm: Jeb Bush challenged Rubio’s poor attendance in the Senate, but Rubio shot back.“I’m not running against Governor Bush. I’m not running against anyone on the stage. I’m running for president,” Rubio said, grabbing the high ground and deflecting the attack. But somehow, he still hasn’t answered the question: Does he hate his job in the Senate? —Yoni Appelbaum
8:39 pm: Ah, there's Jeb Bush: He jumps in to shiv Rubio for not showing up for votes, saying he's a constituent and he voted for Rubio. This is the angriest we've seen Bush in some time. —David Graham
8:39 pm: Marco Rubio also pivots to media bias instead of answering whether he hates his job as senator, drawing enthusiastic applause. —Priscilla Alvarez
8:38 pm: Rubio gets a question challenging him for missing votes and suggesting he's a "young man in a hurry," which he deftly turns around: "That's what the Republican establishment says, too. Why don't you wait your turn?" He says there's no time to let the old bipartisan consensus continue. —David Graham
8:37 pm: Fiorina still isn't giving concrete detail on tax policy. Simplifying the tax code is something that just about everyone can agree on, not a great point on which to differentiate herself. —Gillian White
8:37 pm: Ted Cruz is ready with his tax reform plan, which he says will cost "less than $1 trillion" when scored in a way that incorporates projections of economic growth. (Democrats say it's fuzzy math.) But he quickly discovers the difficulty of announcing a complex economic proposal in a 60-second debate answer, and the moderators cut him off. —Russell Berman
8:36 pm: Carl Quintanilla is incredulous that Carly Fiorina thinks she can reduce the tax code from 70,000 pages to three. Her response is that that's essential to allow the little guy to understand the code. —David Graham
8:34 pm: We're not even half an hour in and the personal attacks are coming. Trump attributes Kasich's placement on the debate stage—at the end of the row of lecterns—to Kasich's poor showing in the polls. The Bush camp has hinted all day that the former governor will go after Marco Rubio tonight, but neither has had a chance to talk much yet. Expect more hits like Trump's.—Marina Koren
8:34 pm: Carson has clearly been rehearsing his numbers for tonight. Refuses to let it go. —Gillian White
8:33 pm: Trump goes after Kasich for Ohio's fracking boom and his time with Lehman Brothers, again demonstrating an encyclopedic command of oppo on the other candidates. Last time he went after Carly Fiorina in similarly specific terms. For a candidate who seems to be playing it by ear, Trump actually studies quite a bit. —Molly Ball
8:33 pm: Trump evidently brought lots of talking points to attack Kasich, for some reason: He says Ohio's economic success is just a result of fracking, and then he attacks Kasich for his time at Lehman Brothers on the eve of the economic crisis. —David Graham
8:32 pm: Kasich says that Carson's 10 percent tithe plan is "just crazy". He is really trying to take his stand here on economic expertise. Trump is first to bring up his relationship to Lehman Brothers. —Gillian White
8:32 pm: John Kasich's early Halloween costume is evidently Howard Beale: He's mad as hell, and he's not gonna take it anymore. —David Graham
8:31 pm: Can anyone recall the last time a candidate interrupted a moderator while he tried to give that candidate a chance to talk? I'm looking at you, Kasich. —Marina Koren
8:31 pm: Depending on how you feel, this debate is either utter chaos or great entertainment. The moderators and candidates are at each other's throats, cutting each other off and interrupting each other. —David Graham
8:31 pm: Carson also says that all his math works out. I look forward to seeing that on paper. —Gillian White
8:30 pm: To add to David’s point, Ben Carson kept his cool as Becky inquired about his tax plan. That demeanor is what has helped him surge in the polls, as of late. —Priscilla Alvarez
8:29 pm: Becky Quick asks Carson about his plan to cut taxes to 10 percent and how that wouldn't massively increase the deficit. This is a big test for Carson, who's accused of being a lightweight on policy. Carson says his rate would be 15 percent, and that he would close the hole by closing loopholes and driving the economy—a classic Laffer curve argument. Quick basically just shoots him down, telling him he's wrong. That's something new.—David Graham
8:28 pm: John Harwood is about to be a household name, thanks to the inevitable PR war that Donald Trump will wage against him after that opening line of questioning. —Russell Berman
8:28 pm: Moderator John Harwood starts the real questions by asking if Trump is running a "comic-book version" of a presidential campaign. Trump, who sparred with CNBC about the debate format over the past week, says the question "wasn't asked very nicely" before delving into his stump issues of corporate inversions and a wall with Mexico. —Matt Ford
8:27 pm: The irony is that the job interview question is traditionally a test of a candidate's ability to deflect a question—“my weakness is I care too much” being the classic answer—but these guys couldn't even do that well. —Molly Ball
8:26 pm: Trump is back to basics here, with a long spiel about border security—the issue that originally brought him to the top of the polls. —David Graham
8:26 pm: Trump starts out talking about the growing number of corporate inversions, and how his plan, which includes lower overall and corporate tax rates, can bring money and business back to the U.S. —Gillian White
8:25 pm: Rand Paul also eschews the prompt, opting to blast the budget deal the House voted on today, vowing to begin a filibuster tomorrow. —David Graham
8:24 pm: Ted Cruz gets a quick laugh with some self-deprecation. His biggest weakness: "I'm too agreeable," he quipped. —Russell Berman
8:23 pm: So far, Trump—who said he was too trusting—is the only candidate to really make much effort to answer this question and actually identify a weakness. —David Graham
8:22 pm: Bush's statement that his weakness is his inability to fake anger suggests that maybe he came out of several days of soul-searching determined to stay the course, not to try too hard to respond to the attacks on his "low energy" by overcompensating. —David Graham
8:21 pm: There was reportedly a big fight between the candidates and CNBC about whether they would have the opportunity to deliver opening statements. CNBC apparently won, but the result is that many of these candidates are just deflecting the first round of questions and cutting straight to their talking points. —Russell Berman
8:19 pm: The first question is the classic interview question: What's your biggest weakness? John Kasich gets it and immediately goes off script, delivering a jeremiad about his opponents as unprepared and unserious for discussing entitlement cuts. —David Graham
8:14 pm: How bad is CNBC's vamping ahead of this debate? Even straight-news reporters are blasting it as atrocious. The Washington Post's Philip Rucker, for example: "CNBC is a hot mess." —David Graham
8:10 pm: This is a big night for CNBC, with the cable-news network expected to smash audience records. It seems to be using the chance to put some of its on-air personalities on display, featuring a roundtable discussion before the candidates take the stage. Whether the audience will find this compelling enough viewing to come back to the network after tonight remains to be seen. —Yoni Appelbaum
7:58 pm: In the undercard debate, each low-polling candidate offered his diagnosis for what's wrong with the Republican Party. To Bobby Jindal, it's that Republican leaders don't fight hard enough for their principles. To Rick Santorum, it's that candidates don't sufficiently emphasize family issues. To Lindsey Graham, it's that Republicans don't offer realistic solutions to problems like climate change and immigration. To George Pataki, it's that they question "accepted science." Perhaps it's not surprising that none of these men is polling well—loyal Republican voters probably don't love being told their party is pathological. —Molly Ball
When the Republican candidates gather on Wednesday night for their third round of debates in Boulder, Colorado, they’ll be 5,430 feet above sea level. It’s a field full of outsiders whose campaigns are taking off, once high-flying candidates brought low, and obscure hopefuls struggling to gain altitude. The challenge they’ll all face is keeping their economic messages firmly grounded in the concerns of ordinary Americans.
The debate, hosted by CNBC, has a theme: “Your Money, Your Vote.” It’s expected to focus on economic issues, and the questions may be more policy-oriented than in previous encounters, giving the candidates a way to showcase their proposals as they compete to attack President Obama’s record in office.
The hopefuls take the stage on a day chock-full of economic news. The Federal Reserve announced its intent to keep the federal funds rate near zero, where it’s been for 83 consecutive months. A two-year budget deal sailed through the House. It included a number of measures that may surface in the debate, including a provision raising the debt ceiling through the end of President Obama’s term in office and a reprieve for the Export-Import Bank, a favorite target of small-government conservatives.
Since the candidates last squared off in California in mid-September, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has bailed out of the race, and the field gained a new frontrunner. A CBS/New York Times poll released Tuesday found Ben Carson with a national lead, pulling ahead with 26 percent of the vote to Donald Trump’s 22 percent. It came on the heels of other polls, showing Carson with the lead in Iowa.
Carson, drawing on a strong strain of black conservatism, is delivering a message that resonates with evangelical voters, even as their support for Trump erodes. But even as he rises in the polls, questions swirl around his campaign’s peculiar finances. Carson hauled in an eye-popping, field-topping $20.8 million in the third quarter, mostly in small-dollar donations, but 54 cents of every dollar he raised was spent on fundraising. As my colleague David Graham reports, that’s raising eyebrows:
Many strategists say direct mail is an important part of a diversified strategy. Other operatives, though, when discussing the Carson campaign, use words like “grifters” or “unconscionable.” They complain that Carson’s fundraisers appear to be reaping small-dollar donations from atypical donors and true believers while doing little with that money to build the infrastructure to win the nomination.
As the two outsiders dominate the race, a third struggles to regain her footing. Carly Fiorina soared after the each of the past two debates, but has struggled to stay in the spotlight in between. She’ll be trying to recapture the enthusiasm her earlier appearances sparked.
Jeb Bush’s once impressive campaign has continued to falter, opening the way for Marco Rubio to contend for the support of the Republican establishment. They’ll also be joined on stage on Wednesday by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Ohio Governor John Kasich, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.
Earlier in the evening, four candidates who did not qualify for the main event battled for attention: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, former New York Governor George Pataki, and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.
Results from CNBC GOP presidential debate 2015. At times, the 2016 CNBC Republican presidential debate seems to be a standoff between the GOP candidates and moderators Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick and John Harwood. Still, we did learn a little more about Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina and the rest of the Republican field. Here's tonight's winners, losers and people we forgot were there.
First, CNBC
CNBC – Sure, the network isn't on the ballot for president, but several candidates made sure to point out they thought CNBC was anything but neutral and the constant "you've run out of time" directive to candidates got old quickly.
Cruz had the anti-media lines of the night:
"How about talking about the substantive issues people care about?" he fired back at the moderators, adding "nobody watching at home believes that any of the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primary."
Trump got in on the action, too, referring to CNBC's questions as "nasty and ridiculous."
And Rubio? He said the Democrats already had their own super PAC.
"It's the American mainstream media," he said.
GOP 1, CNBC 0.
Candidates
Donald Trump – You have to give Trump credit, he stays true to form. Trump was flashes of his typical bombastic self and anything less than that would have been disappointing to fans. Still, he did seem to temper his answers and try to come across as more presidential. Trumps answered the questions about his bankruptcies and fiscal policies before and his answers – at least according to the polls – satisfy voters. His gun control comments were some of the strongest of the night for him and helped push him into the win column.
Ben Carson – Carson is a neurosurgeon not a politicians and his soft-spoken demeanor can seem out of place next to the bombastic Trump. His numbers are surging in the polls and his campaign's appeal to conservatives, especially among evangelical Christians, will make him a player in the future. His answer regarding same-sex marriage plays well with his base and was one of his most direct statements to date. He handled tough questions related to his involvement with a supplement maker with a much-needed dose of personality. Carson can put this one in the win column.
Marco Rubio – Rubio was obviously smarting over the Sun Sentinel editorial that called on him to resign due to his poor attendance in the Senate. Rubio's cool demeanor faltered and he hit back at the moderators as being part of a liberal media, a line that will be well received by conservatives and ended up being a good move. It was mostly a strong performance by Rubio, though the door was opened for opponents to highlight his own shaky financial past. You can still put this one down as a win for Rubio.
Ted Cruz – Cruz followed Rubio's lead and hit back at the media, drawing some of the biggest applause of the night, and calling the moderators out for what he saw as unfair questioning. It was a good debate for Cruz who, like Rubio, needs to show he can move the electorate needle. The comments on the media along may end up being enough to direct the spotlight back to Cruz and remind conservatives why they loved him in the first place.
Jeb Bush – Meet the new, grouchy Bush. Bush started off by swinging – and ultimately missing – in a barb directed at Rubio over his attendance in the Senate. Immediately after Rubio blasted him, moderators hit Bush with questions related to falling poll numbers and struggling campaign. Not a good night for Bush and he really, really needed it to be.
Carly Fiorina – Fiorina was asked about her controversial time as chief of Hewlett-Packard. She answered directly and succinctly and continues to prove herself a strong debater. Her previous debate performances were enough to move her up in the polls, numbers that quickly fell off in the wake of the events. Fiorina is a viable contender but it's starting to look like she'd be more of VP than POTUS. Not a loss for Fiorina but the setup didn't make it as much of a win as her previous efforts.
The rest
Mike Huckabee – Huckabee stays true to form and hits on big government, out-of-control spending and failure of lawmakers to address the real issues. Those make points with voters but his campaign doesn't have the momentum to keep going for too much longer. His comment about taking on the Clintons "and still being alive to talk about" was one of the most brutal of the night - and Republicans loved it.
Chris Christie – Like Cruz, Christie passed on criticizing fellow Republicans and opted to go after Democrats. Christie's message has been consistent but he's not resonating with Americans and he's another one that could soon opt to end his campaign.
John Kasich – Kasich keeps talking but is anyone listening? His financial ideas are well-received by many but he's also easily dismissed. He may hang around to keep pushing the front runners, but his chances of moving ahead in the race are next to none.
Rand Paul – Paul, famous for his filibusters, sounded like the Senator he is. It seems the Paul train has run its course and you can expect his presidential bid to end shortly.
Republican debate: Here's who won...and who lost. Two old friends finally dropped the gloves. Others spent time trying to show up each other with a variety of "the only candidate to" do such and such claims. One of the front-runners seemed to barely show up at all.
With much of the crowded Republican presidential field in danger of becoming irrelevant, Wednesday's debate offered an important opportunity to shine.
Some, however, just seemed to fade farther away.
Viewers of the debate, hosted by CNBC, got treated to a spirited exchange that at times saw the candidates tearing at each other and at others united against two common goals: Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and a media they insisted is biased against the GOP.
In all, the night featured a decided set of winners and losers, built on moments golden and not-so-golden. A rundown:
ROCK 'N' ROLL RUBIO: The senator from Florida faced some fundamental character questions, namely about the votes he's missing while campaigning, and some personal finance missteps. Each time, Rubio deflected the challenges and focused on issues. "I'm not worried about my finances," he said in one exchange. "This debate needs to be about the men and women across this country who are struggling on a daily basis to provide for their families a better future that we always said this country is about."
"I still feel strongly the star of the night was Rubio. I think he did really well," said Greg Valliere, chief global strategist at Horizon Investments. "He was quick to come back on this charge by Jeb (Bush) he should resign. Whenever he talks about his family narrative he seems to have a more upbeat message, more Reaganesque, not negative."
Score Rubio a winner.
PAGING DR. CARSON: A recent CBS/New York Times poll has Carson leading the field, sending Donald Trump into second place for the first time in months. At the outset of the debate, Carson promised to follow Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill about other Republicans. Carson, though, took the admonition to an extreme, refusing to take the bait on multiple occasions to at least set himself apart from the field. Moreover, at one point, he took a softball question about whether government should clamp down on pharmaceutical companies that gouge on prescriptions and turned it into an academic discussion on overregulation. Trump has recently taken to calling Carson "low energy," the same as Bush. It was hard to dispute that on the debate stage.
Score Carson a loser.
CANTANKEROUS CRUZ: Sen. Ted Cruz has never been one to shy away from speaking his mind, but he seemed especially on point Wednesday. He was able to drive home how his own background helps him understand the plight of middle America. He also scored comity points by joining Rand Paul in wanting to audit the Federal Reserve, while striking a chord with the hard right on his desire to eliminate the IRS.
Score Cruz a winner.
COMBATIVE CHRISTIE: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was forceful and erudite in hitting a core GOP value — crime — as well as a non-core value of developing alternative energy, particularly solar. And he was one of a multitude of voices that lashed out at debate moderators for being either overly aggressive in their questioning or not focusing as clearly on the issues.
In response to a discussion about fantasy football regulation, Christie ranted, "We have $19 trillion in debt, we have people out of work, we have ISIS and Al-Qaeda attacking us, and we're talking about fantasy football? How about we get the government to do what we're supposed to be doing?"
Cruz earlier used a question on the debt ceiling to rip the debate panel, saying, "the questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media. This is not a cage match." Rubio pounced as well, accusing the media in general of being a "super PAC" for Clinton.
Score Christie a winner and likely the only back-of-the-pack candidate with a chance, albeit low, to move up in the field.
TRUTH-CHALLENGED TRUMP: The Donald was there with all of his home-run lines about making the U.S. more competitive against China, Japan and Mexico. But all the notes he hit were familiar ones. Then, when challenged with statements he made in the past about making life tougher for immigrant workers, he denied criticizing Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, despite this published report and statements on his own web site to the contrary.
Score Trump neutral.
BELOW-THE-RADAR BUSH: The former Florida governor needed to deliver a knockout punch to re-establish himself at the front of the field. He did little to make that happen. He did, however, engage in one of the more memorable moments of the night. He and Rubio have been friends for years, with the latter calling Bush a mentor. That may have ended for good Wednesday. "Marco, when you signed up for this, this was a six-year term and you should be showing up to work. What is it, like a French work week?" Replied Rubio: "Someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you." Ouch.
Score Bush a loser and the Bush-Rubio friendship a loser as well.
THE FORLORN FIELD: The rest of the group — Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich each had moments and didn't do anything necessarily to hurt their chances, but also did nothing likely to get them into the front of the pack. Losers, all.
Fact checking the third round of GOP debates. CNBC aired two GOP presidential debates Wednesday: a prime-time event starring 11 candidates and an earlier debate featuring four second-tier contenders, based on an average of recent polls.
Not every candidate uttered facts that are easily fact checked, but following is a list of 14 suspicious or interesting claims. As is our practice, we do not award Pinocchios when we do a roundup of facts in debates.
“92 percent of the jobs lost during Barack Obama’s first term belonged to women.”—Former business executive Carly Fiorina
Fiorina, who served as a surrogate for Mitt Romney’s during his 2012 presidential run, recycles a misleading talking point from that unsuccessful campaign — but oddly, she never double-checked the math. The Romney campaign calculated these figures by comparing the decline in the number of all nonfarm employees from January 2009 to March 2012 with the decline in jobs held by women in that period.
While the statistic was technically correct for one month in 2012 — about three years into Obama’s first term — it quickly was dropped by Romney’s campaign because newer economic data made it obsolete.
In the debate, Fiorina claimed that this statistic was true for Obama’s first term. But by the time he took the oath of office a second time, his jobs record was a net winner, both for men and women. So this claim is utterly wrong.
“The socialist [Sen. Bernie Sanders] says they’re going to pay for everything and give you everything for free, except they don’t say they’re going to raise it through taxes to 90 percent to do it.”—Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.)
This is false, though it has increasingly emerged as a GOP talking point. Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has not yet released a tax plan, but has has repeatedly denied that he would increase taxes from the current marginal rate of 39.6 percent to 90 percent. (The margin rate is what you pay on each additional dollar earned.)
The United States had a marginal tax rate of 90 percent in the Dwight Eisenhower administration, and then John F. Kennedy reduced it to 70 percent. But even such rates would not take 90 percent of a person’s income.
“My record was one of cutting taxes each and every year. You don’t have to guess about it, because I actually have a record: $19 billion of tax cuts, 1.3 million jobs created.”—Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush
Bush repeatedly claims $19 billion in taxes over his eight years as governor, but that is quite misleading. This refers to cumulative state revenue changes as a result of state and federal decisions, and it includes revenue changes from tax and non-tax legislative actions during his tenure as governor.
Moreover, this $19 billion figure includes revenues the state would have received if the federal estate tax credit had not been phased out. There were some states that levied new state taxes to balance out the phase-out of the federal estate tax. Bush didn’t fight the estate tax repeal. But that’s certainly not the same as actively “cutting” those tax revenues from the state budget.
Bush’s 1.3 million jobs number is accurate, as far as it goes, and he avoided claiming that he “led the nation” in job creation. But, as we repeatedly warn, readers should be wary when state executives take credit for the number of jobs in their state. There’s not one policy decision that affects jobs figures.
“The top 1 percent earn a higher share of our income than any year since 1928.”—Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
Cruz’s comment is based on research by Emmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley, economics professor who is often cited for claims on income inequality.
Saez analyzed Internal Revenue Service income data dating to 1913, and found that the top 1 percent in 2012 had the highest share of income since 1928, the peak of the stock market bubble of the roaring 1920s. Saez compiled market income data, including capital gains and excluding government transfers.
The top 1 percent’s income share fell slightly in 2013 compared to 2012, to 20.1 percent from 22.8 percent. But the trend remained the same.
Incomes in the top 1 percent fluctuated more sharply since 1928 compared to the bottom 99 percent. And the bottom 90 percent’s income share did not increase as much as the top decile as the top decile in recent decades, Saez wrote. “Those at the very top of the income distribution therefore play a central role in the evolution of U.S. inequality over the course of the 20th century,” Saez wrote.
Moderator Becky Quick: “You had talked a little bit about Marco Rubio. I think you called him Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator because he was in favor of the H-1B [visa].”
Donald Trump: “I never said that. I never said that.”—Exchange during the CNBC debate
Perhaps Trump should have read his own campaign Web site before the debate.
Among the immigration policy proposals listed on DonaldJTrump.com is a proposal to increase the prevailing wage for those in the H-1B program. H-1B visas are granted to highly skilled immigrant workers who are coveted by technology companies, particularly ones in Silicon Valley.
Trump has proposed restricting the H-1B program. He criticized the program for giving away coveted entry-level IT jobs to workers getting flown in cheaper from overseas. More STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) graduates receive degrees than find STEM jobs each year, according to Trump’s proposal. He proposed raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1B visa holders so that entry-level IT jobs can go to “the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers form overseas.”
“Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities,” the white paper read. (We could not find any evidence that Trump himself has made this assertion.)
During the debate, Trump denied that he was critical of Zuckerberg, of Facebook: “I am all in favor of keeping these talented people here so they can go to work in Silicon Valley.”
“They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All that’s in that trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something else a long time ago. And they’ve stolen from you because now they know they cannot pay these benefits and Social Security is going to be insolvent in seven to eight years.”—Christie
Christie loves to say this but that doesn’t make it true. And he significantly misstates the date for when Social Security’s trust funds will be depleted; that will not happen for another 20 years (and even then Social Security can pay partial benefits).
An IOU is just a pejorative way of saying “bond.” These bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Until the 2011 debt-ceiling impasse, one could not imagine that any president or Congress would risk defaulting on them because it would damage the nation’s financial standing. Still, Treasury bonds are considered a good bet – deemed to be one of the safest places to keep money.
The bonds are a real asset to Social Security, but they also represent an obligation of the rest of the government. Like any entity that issues debt, such as a corporation, the government will have to make good on its obligations, generally by taking the money out of revenue, reducing expenses or issuing new debt. The action taken really depends on the resources available at the time. There is nothing particularly unusual about this, except that the U.S. government is better placed to make good on these obligations than virtually any other debt-issuer.
Some analysts, however, question whether the Social Security system holding those bonds lowers the cost of paying benefits relative to if the system did not hold them. Since the bonds have to be redeemed by general taxpayers, as a group taxpayers have to provide the same level of revenues to finance benefit payments as if Social Security were not holding any bonds.
So then the question becomes whether the fact that Social Security ran these surpluses in the past improved the government’s overall fiscal position and thereby made it easier for the government to finance the total level of upcoming benefit payments. Some analysts contend that the existence of the earlier Social Security surpluses spurred lawmakers to spend more, resulting in higher public debt.
“For the first time in 35 years, we have more businesses closing than starting.”—Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Rubio is referring to a report published in 2014 by the Brookings Institution which studied Census Bureau data called Business Dynamic Statistics. Brookings analysts tracked data back to 1978 and found that starting in 2008, business deaths exceeded business births.
But note that this started happening seven years ago, while Rubio makes it sound like it is a new development.
“I went into Ohio, where we had an $8 billion hole and now we have a $2 billion surplus. We’re up 347,000 jobs. When I was in Washington, I fought to get the budget balanced. I was the architect. It was the first time we did it since man walked on the moon. We cut taxes and we had a $5 trillion projected surplus when I left.”—Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R)
These are Kasich’s go-to claims about his record as Ohio governor and chairman of the House Budget Committee. But some of his figures lack context.
The $8 billion figure reflects the breadth of the budget imbalance that Kasich’s administration faced when he took office (the actual figure is $7.7 billion). But the projection did not end up being as high, and the actual shortfall was decreased by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Kasich’s $2 billion figure and jobs numbers largely check out. The $2 billion surplus is the state government’s tally of the rainy day fund. While Bureau of Labor Statistics support his job creation numbers, we’ve frequently urged readers to be wary about such claims. So much of what happens in an economy and the impact on jobs is beyond a single politician’s control.
Kudos to Kasich for clarifying that the $5 trillion surplus was a projection, not an actual surplus, when he left Congress in 2000. We’ve urged him to clarify this point in the past. The figure he uses was a projected, 10-year surplus — but it didn’t end up materializing because of a slower economy, tax cuts and increased government spending after 9/11 in the years after Kasich left Washington.
“I feel that the gun-free zones and, you know, when you say that, that’s target practice for the sickos and for the mentally ill. That’s target. They look around for gun-free zones. You know, we could give you another example — the Marines, the Army, these wonderful six soldiers that were killed. Two of them were among the most highly decorated — they weren’t allowed on a military base to have guns. And somebody walked in and shot them, killed them. If they had guns, he [the shooter] wouldn’t be around very long. I can tell you, there wouldn’t have been much damage.”—Businessman Donald Trump
Trump, referring to the shooting at the Naval Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., in July, is wrong on this point. The service members at the Naval Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., were armed. In fact, the military is investigating why they were armed, as the Pentagon has restrictions on who can carry weapons at such facilities.
The FBI said a 24-year-old gunman armed with a semiautomatic assault rifle and a handgun methodically hunted for Marines and sailors to kill.
As The Washington Post’s Adam Goldman reported:
Edward Reinhold, special agent in charge of the FBI’s field office in Knoxville, Tenn., provided the first definitive account of the terrorist attack that left four Marines and a Navy petty officer dead.
Reinhold told reporters at a news conference in Chattanooga that Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez smashed through the gate of the reserve center last Thursday and was almost immediately confronted by a service member who had his own gun.
The service member fired several rounds, but it has not yet been determined whether he managed to hit Abdulazeez, who quickly entered the reserve center looking for targets, mortally wounding the sailor inside the building.
“We’ve lost two million jobs — two million jobs — under this administration in manufacturing.”—Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.)
This is false. Manufacturing took a huge hit during the Great Recession, so 2 million jobs were lost between December 2007 and June 2009, the official length of the recession, according to government statistics. But the recession began a year before Obama took office.
Meanwhile, from those depths, manufacturing has slowly crawled its way back. From the start of Obama’s presidency, there are about 250,000 fewer manufacturing jobs. That is still about 1.4 million fewer than the start of the recession, however.
“We cut our state budget 26 percent in eight years. … In eight years, we never raised taxes, we cut taxes.“—Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R)
This is Jindal’s go-to line about his record as governor. But he takes too much credit.
The state budget in fiscal 2009, Jindal’s first budget after taking office in 2008, was $34.3 billion. In fiscal 2016, the proposed budget was $25.1 billion. That is a $9.2 billion decrease, or a 26.8 percent decrease.
But this budget decrease was not due to his executive decisions alone. Federal funding also decreased by $10 billion during those eight years, from $19.7 billion to $9.7 billion. Part of this decrease was waning federal funding for hurricane recovery, the Times-Picayune has reported.
“We have the lowest labor participation rate in 50 years.”—Santorum
The labor participation rate fell to 62.4 percent in September, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s actually lowest since 1977, when it touched 62.3 percent — but that’s 38 years, not 50. So Santorum’s a bit off with his figure.
When Obama took office in January, 2009, the workforce participation rate was 65.7 percent. So there has certainly been a decline. But the rate had already been on a steady downward track since it hit a high of 67.3 percent in the last year of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
A key reason? The composition of the labor force has been affected by the retirement of the leading edge of the Baby Boom generation.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 2012 concluded that just over half of the post-1999 decline in the participation rate comes from the retirement of the baby boomers. Critically, the research showed that the problem is only going to get worse in the rest of the decade, with retirements accounting for two-thirds of the decline of participation rate by 2020. In other words, the rate will keep declining, no matter how well the economy does.
“We are on track to have the smallest army since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1915.”—Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Will this zombie claim about the shrinking Navy ever go away? Apparently not; we already awarded Graham three Pinocchios earlier this year for the same claim. Fact checkers repeatedly debunked this in the 2012 presidential elections, and it’s being repeated again this time around.
But, surprise: A lot has changed in 100 years, including the need and capacity of ships. After all, it’s a now a matter of modern nuclear-powered fleet carriers, versus gunboats and small warships of 100 years ago. The push for ships under the Reagan era (to build the Navy up to 600-ship levels) no longer exists, and ships from that era are now retiring.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus recently spoke about this problematic ship-counting exercise. There are other ways to measure seapower than just the sheer number of ships, he said: “That’s pretty irrelevant. We also have fewer telegraph machines than we did in World War I and we seem to be doing fine without that. … Look at the capability. Look at the missions that we do.” Plus, the Navy is on track to grow to just over 300 ships, approximately the size that a bipartisan congressional panel has recommended for the current Navy.
As for his statement about the army, Graham is on a bit more solid ground because he’s talking about the number of troops. (Under sequestration, the number of troops was due to be reduced to 420,000 in fiscal year 2016, the lowest since 1940, but the new budget deal will likely change that.) But even then, it’s apples and oranges to compare the capabilities of a World War II army with today’s army.
“G.E. just lost a contract, you know what they did? … They got the Ex-Im bank in France to support it, and what did they do? They moved manufacturing out of South Carolina, out of Texas, moved to — Hungary, and to France. G.E. is still making money. G.E. is still doing well, but American workers are out of jobs. That’s why we have to have this level playing field so we can compete with the rest of the world.”—Santorum
That the Export-Import Bank levels the playing field for the U.S. economy is a common argument for reauthorizing the federal agency. But there are data limitations to how the Ex-Im Bank’s loans has affected American jobs.
The Government Accountability Office in 2013 found that there are limitations to the method the bank uses to keep track of employment figures. This method plays an essential role in the bank’s jobs calculation process, the GAO found.
But because of limitations out of the agency’s direct control, the GAO found that the data “cannot be used to distinguish between jobs that were newly created and those that were maintained.”
Fact checking the third round of GOP debates. CNBC aired two GOP presidential debates Wednesday: a prime-time event starring 11 candidates and an earlier debate featuring four second-tier contenders, based on an average of recent polls.
Not every candidate uttered facts that are easily fact checked, but following is a list of 14 suspicious or interesting claims. As is our practice, we do not award Pinocchios when we do a roundup of facts in debates.
“92 percent of the jobs lost during Barack Obama’s first term belonged to women.”—Former business executive Carly Fiorina
Fiorina, who served as a surrogate for Mitt Romney’s during his 2012 presidential run, recycles a misleading talking point from that unsuccessful campaign — but oddly, she never double-checked the math. The Romney campaign calculated these figures by comparing the decline in the number of all nonfarm employees from January 2009 to March 2012 with the decline in jobs held by women in that period.
While the statistic was technically correct for one month in 2012 — about three years into Obama’s first term — it quickly was dropped by Romney’s campaign because newer economic data made it obsolete.
In the debate, Fiorina claimed that this statistic was true for Obama’s first term. But by the time he took the oath of office a second time, his jobs record was a net winner, both for men and women. So this claim is utterly wrong.
“The socialist [Sen. Bernie Sanders] says they’re going to pay for everything and give you everything for free, except they don’t say they’re going to raise it through taxes to 90 percent to do it.”—Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.)
This is false, though it has increasingly emerged as a GOP talking point. Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has not yet released a tax plan, but has has repeatedly denied that he would increase taxes from the current marginal rate of 39.6 percent to 90 percent. (The margin rate is what you pay on each additional dollar earned.)
The United States had a marginal tax rate of 90 percent in the Dwight Eisenhower administration, and then John F. Kennedy reduced it to 70 percent. But even such rates would not take 90 percent of a person’s income.
“My record was one of cutting taxes each and every year. You don’t have to guess about it, because I actually have a record: $19 billion of tax cuts, 1.3 million jobs created.”—Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush
Bush repeatedly claims $19 billion in taxes over his eight years as governor, but that is quite misleading. This refers to cumulative state revenue changes as a result of state and federal decisions, and it includes revenue changes from tax and non-tax legislative actions during his tenure as governor.
Moreover, this $19 billion figure includes revenues the state would have received if the federal estate tax credit had not been phased out. There were some states that levied new state taxes to balance out the phase-out of the federal estate tax. Bush didn’t fight the estate tax repeal. But that’s certainly not the same as actively “cutting” those tax revenues from the state budget.
Bush’s 1.3 million jobs number is accurate, as far as it goes, and he avoided claiming that he “led the nation” in job creation. But, as we repeatedly warn, readers should be wary when state executives take credit for the number of jobs in their state. There’s not one policy decision that affects jobs figures.
“The top 1 percent earn a higher share of our income than any year since 1928.”—Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
Cruz’s comment is based on research by Emmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley, economics professor who is often cited for claims on income inequality.
Saez analyzed Internal Revenue Service income data dating to 1913, and found that the top 1 percent in 2012 had the highest share of income since 1928, the peak of the stock market bubble of the roaring 1920s. Saez compiled market income data, including capital gains and excluding government transfers.
The top 1 percent’s income share fell slightly in 2013 compared to 2012, to 20.1 percent from 22.8 percent. But the trend remained the same.
Incomes in the top 1 percent fluctuated more sharply since 1928 compared to the bottom 99 percent. And the bottom 90 percent’s income share did not increase as much as the top decile as the top decile in recent decades, Saez wrote. “Those at the very top of the income distribution therefore play a central role in the evolution of U.S. inequality over the course of the 20th century,” Saez wrote.
Moderator Becky Quick: “You had talked a little bit about Marco Rubio. I think you called him Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator because he was in favor of the H-1B [visa].”
Donald Trump: “I never said that. I never said that.”—Exchange during the CNBC debate
Perhaps Trump should have read his own campaign Web site before the debate.
Among the immigration policy proposals listed on DonaldJTrump.com is a proposal to increase the prevailing wage for those in the H-1B program. H-1B visas are granted to highly skilled immigrant workers who are coveted by technology companies, particularly ones in Silicon Valley.
Trump has proposed restricting the H-1B program. He criticized the program for giving away coveted entry-level IT jobs to workers getting flown in cheaper from overseas. More STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) graduates receive degrees than find STEM jobs each year, according to Trump’s proposal. He proposed raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1B visa holders so that entry-level IT jobs can go to “the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers form overseas.”
“Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities,” the white paper read. (We could not find any evidence that Trump himself has made this assertion.)
During the debate, Trump denied that he was critical of Zuckerberg, of Facebook: “I am all in favor of keeping these talented people here so they can go to work in Silicon Valley.”
“They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All that’s in that trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something else a long time ago. And they’ve stolen from you because now they know they cannot pay these benefits and Social Security is going to be insolvent in seven to eight years.”—Christie
Christie loves to say this but that doesn’t make it true. And he significantly misstates the date for when Social Security’s trust funds will be depleted; that will not happen for another 20 years (and even then Social Security can pay partial benefits).
An IOU is just a pejorative way of saying “bond.” These bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Until the 2011 debt-ceiling impasse, one could not imagine that any president or Congress would risk defaulting on them because it would damage the nation’s financial standing. Still, Treasury bonds are considered a good bet – deemed to be one of the safest places to keep money.
The bonds are a real asset to Social Security, but they also represent an obligation of the rest of the government. Like any entity that issues debt, such as a corporation, the government will have to make good on its obligations, generally by taking the money out of revenue, reducing expenses or issuing new debt. The action taken really depends on the resources available at the time. There is nothing particularly unusual about this, except that the U.S. government is better placed to make good on these obligations than virtually any other debt-issuer.
Some analysts, however, question whether the Social Security system holding those bonds lowers the cost of paying benefits relative to if the system did not hold them. Since the bonds have to be redeemed by general taxpayers, as a group taxpayers have to provide the same level of revenues to finance benefit payments as if Social Security were not holding any bonds.
So then the question becomes whether the fact that Social Security ran these surpluses in the past improved the government’s overall fiscal position and thereby made it easier for the government to finance the total level of upcoming benefit payments. Some analysts contend that the existence of the earlier Social Security surpluses spurred lawmakers to spend more, resulting in higher public debt.
“For the first time in 35 years, we have more businesses closing than starting.”—Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Rubio is referring to a report published in 2014 by the Brookings Institution which studied Census Bureau data called Business Dynamic Statistics. Brookings analysts tracked data back to 1978 and found that starting in 2008, business deaths exceeded business births.
But note that this started happening seven years ago, while Rubio makes it sound like it is a new development.
“I went into Ohio, where we had an $8 billion hole and now we have a $2 billion surplus. We’re up 347,000 jobs. When I was in Washington, I fought to get the budget balanced. I was the architect. It was the first time we did it since man walked on the moon. We cut taxes and we had a $5 trillion projected surplus when I left.”—Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R)
These are Kasich’s go-to claims about his record as Ohio governor and chairman of the House Budget Committee. But some of his figures lack context.
The $8 billion figure reflects the breadth of the budget imbalance that Kasich’s administration faced when he took office (the actual figure is $7.7 billion). But the projection did not end up being as high, and the actual shortfall was decreased by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Kasich’s $2 billion figure and jobs numbers largely check out. The $2 billion surplus is the state government’s tally of the rainy day fund. While Bureau of Labor Statistics support his job creation numbers, we’ve frequently urged readers to be wary about such claims. So much of what happens in an economy and the impact on jobs is beyond a single politician’s control.
Kudos to Kasich for clarifying that the $5 trillion surplus was a projection, not an actual surplus, when he left Congress in 2000. We’ve urged him to clarify this point in the past. The figure he uses was a projected, 10-year surplus — but it didn’t end up materializing because of a slower economy, tax cuts and increased government spending after 9/11 in the years after Kasich left Washington.
“I feel that the gun-free zones and, you know, when you say that, that’s target practice for the sickos and for the mentally ill. That’s target. They look around for gun-free zones. You know, we could give you another example — the Marines, the Army, these wonderful six soldiers that were killed. Two of them were among the most highly decorated — they weren’t allowed on a military base to have guns. And somebody walked in and shot them, killed them. If they had guns, he [the shooter] wouldn’t be around very long. I can tell you, there wouldn’t have been much damage.”—Businessman Donald Trump
Trump, referring to the shooting at the Naval Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., in July, is wrong on this point. The service members at the Naval Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., were armed. In fact, the military is investigating why they were armed, as the Pentagon has restrictions on who can carry weapons at such facilities.
The FBI said a 24-year-old gunman armed with a semiautomatic assault rifle and a handgun methodically hunted for Marines and sailors to kill.
As The Washington Post’s Adam Goldman reported:
Edward Reinhold, special agent in charge of the FBI’s field office in Knoxville, Tenn., provided the first definitive account of the terrorist attack that left four Marines and a Navy petty officer dead.
Reinhold told reporters at a news conference in Chattanooga that Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez smashed through the gate of the reserve center last Thursday and was almost immediately confronted by a service member who had his own gun.
The service member fired several rounds, but it has not yet been determined whether he managed to hit Abdulazeez, who quickly entered the reserve center looking for targets, mortally wounding the sailor inside the building.
“We’ve lost two million jobs — two million jobs — under this administration in manufacturing.”—Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.)
This is false. Manufacturing took a huge hit during the Great Recession, so 2 million jobs were lost between December 2007 and June 2009, the official length of the recession, according to government statistics. But the recession began a year before Obama took office.
Meanwhile, from those depths, manufacturing has slowly crawled its way back. From the start of Obama’s presidency, there are about 250,000 fewer manufacturing jobs. That is still about 1.4 million fewer than the start of the recession, however.
“We cut our state budget 26 percent in eight years. … In eight years, we never raised taxes, we cut taxes.“—Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R)
This is Jindal’s go-to line about his record as governor. But he takes too much credit.
The state budget in fiscal 2009, Jindal’s first budget after taking office in 2008, was $34.3 billion. In fiscal 2016, the proposed budget was $25.1 billion. That is a $9.2 billion decrease, or a 26.8 percent decrease.
But this budget decrease was not due to his executive decisions alone. Federal funding also decreased by $10 billion during those eight years, from $19.7 billion to $9.7 billion. Part of this decrease was waning federal funding for hurricane recovery, the Times-Picayune has reported.
“We have the lowest labor participation rate in 50 years.”—Santorum
The labor participation rate fell to 62.4 percent in September, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s actually lowest since 1977, when it touched 62.3 percent — but that’s 38 years, not 50. So Santorum’s a bit off with his figure.
When Obama took office in January, 2009, the workforce participation rate was 65.7 percent. So there has certainly been a decline. But the rate had already been on a steady downward track since it hit a high of 67.3 percent in the last year of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
A key reason? The composition of the labor force has been affected by the retirement of the leading edge of the Baby Boom generation.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 2012 concluded that just over half of the post-1999 decline in the participation rate comes from the retirement of the baby boomers. Critically, the research showed that the problem is only going to get worse in the rest of the decade, with retirements accounting for two-thirds of the decline of participation rate by 2020. In other words, the rate will keep declining, no matter how well the economy does.
“We are on track to have the smallest army since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1915.”—Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Will this zombie claim about the shrinking Navy ever go away? Apparently not; we already awarded Graham three Pinocchios earlier this year for the same claim. Fact checkers repeatedly debunked this in the 2012 presidential elections, and it’s being repeated again this time around.
But, surprise: A lot has changed in 100 years, including the need and capacity of ships. After all, it’s a now a matter of modern nuclear-powered fleet carriers, versus gunboats and small warships of 100 years ago. The push for ships under the Reagan era (to build the Navy up to 600-ship levels) no longer exists, and ships from that era are now retiring.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus recently spoke about this problematic ship-counting exercise. There are other ways to measure seapower than just the sheer number of ships, he said: “That’s pretty irrelevant. We also have fewer telegraph machines than we did in World War I and we seem to be doing fine without that. … Look at the capability. Look at the missions that we do.” Plus, the Navy is on track to grow to just over 300 ships, approximately the size that a bipartisan congressional panel has recommended for the current Navy.
As for his statement about the army, Graham is on a bit more solid ground because he’s talking about the number of troops. (Under sequestration, the number of troops was due to be reduced to 420,000 in fiscal year 2016, the lowest since 1940, but the new budget deal will likely change that.) But even then, it’s apples and oranges to compare the capabilities of a World War II army with today’s army.
“G.E. just lost a contract, you know what they did? … They got the Ex-Im bank in France to support it, and what did they do? They moved manufacturing out of South Carolina, out of Texas, moved to — Hungary, and to France. G.E. is still making money. G.E. is still doing well, but American workers are out of jobs. That’s why we have to have this level playing field so we can compete with the rest of the world.”—Santorum
That the Export-Import Bank levels the playing field for the U.S. economy is a common argument for reauthorizing the federal agency. But there are data limitations to how the Ex-Im Bank’s loans has affected American jobs.
The Government Accountability Office in 2013 found that there are limitations to the method the bank uses to keep track of employment figures. This method plays an essential role in the bank’s jobs calculation process, the GAO found.
But because of limitations out of the agency’s direct control, the GAO found that the data “cannot be used to distinguish between jobs that were newly created and those that were maintained.”
Up next
The next Republican debate is set for Tuesday, Nov. 10. It will be broadcast from Milwaukee and is hosted by Fox Business News and the Wall Street Journal.
You can find out more about all the candidates by using our 2016 Election Cheat Sheet. —Yoni Appelbaum
Regardless of it all today, please stay in touch.
