LAS VEGAS – The final debate of 2015 concluded last night, but that may be the only conclusion that the CNN/Salem Media Group produced. The night produced a few memorable moments, but few that suggest a significant shift in standing among the participants. And there seemed to be few reason to think that the next debate, staged by Fox Business News, will have fewer participants.

Jazz offered his thoughts on the debate, much of which I share, but there are a couple of significant differences. For one, the debate moderation last night was — with one big caveat — very good, in the B+/A- range. Wolf Blitzer, Dana Bash, and our own Hugh Hewitt asked tough but fair questions, and did not argue with the candidates as we have seen in other debates. Mike Huckabee noted the difference in the Spin Room after the undercard debate, and so did Donald Trump, who called it “elegant” and pronounced himself very happy with the moderators, except for Hugh’s legit question about the nuclear triad.

The one caveat was in CNN’s unsubtle attempts to fan the flames between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. When one got asked a question, inevitably the other got to follow up, even when the first answer didn’t involve the other. It grew more and more noticeable as the evening wore on, and it did produce some fine exchanges. I’d call the fight last night between the two a draw, and while both had moments that played well to their core supporters, I’d guess that either won more voters than the other out of the debate-within-the-debate.

The real story to watch coming out of this debate will be Chris Christie. He repeatedly made the case that a nation facing these kinds of dangers (in the foreign-policy context of the debate) needs an experienced executive, and one who knows the nature of Islamist terrorism. Both Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina tried to make the same argument, with the latter curiously trying to play the gender card at the same time, but neither had the impact that Christie did. He took advantage of the infighting between the three Senators over the arcane minutiae of the USA Freedom Act to demonstrate the value of an executive over a legislator in a presidential nominee.

This matters because of New Hampshire. Christie remains in the also-ran category in national polling, but he’s getting double digits in recent Granite State surveys. He’s slightly ahead of Cruz and slightly behind Rubio in third place in the RCP average, but Christie’s team is trying to hit a New Hampshire home run. If he can break out there — and his pragmatic, executive-oriented approach gives him good potential for a win with those voters — he can upend the GOP race. His debate performance was clearly oriented toward that goal, and he did exactly what he needed to do.

For that matter, so did Cruz and Rubio. Trump didn’t do any damage in large part because his status has little to do with debate performances. One can make an argument that Trump still isn’t offering anything except vanity and platitudes, but that’s still selling and little else matters for Trump at this point. Carson may not have reversed his recent polling decline, in large part due to the shift in the focus of the primary fight to national security, but he capably engaged and defended his quiet demeanor well. The rest of the field didn’t do as well, especially Bush, who had a good moment against Trump and looked tough, but still looks awkward in a debate. He fumbled a poorly considered joke about the press in the OPM hack issue, and his closing statement sounded disjointed and not well thought out. Rand Paul did well, but a foreign-policy debate puts him on the fringe of the GOP. Kasich seemed almost as much of an afterthought as the undercard, where Lindsey Graham had the only memorable performance.

All in all, the debate was a success for the GOP overall. Nearly every candidate reminded voters that the current failure in US foreign policy belongs not just to Barack Obama, but also to Hillary Clinton. That message needs to resonate more, but it didn’t get entirely buried in the normal debate infighting. It’s a good debate on which to rest over the Christmas holidays for the Republican Party, even if it won’t significantly change the arc of the primaries.