Tis the season for supporters of the hares to call for the tortoises to either head back to their homes or move out entirely, and the pace seems to be picking up. The first big jab came to Marco Rubio from one of his home state newspapers, abetted by Harry Reid yesterday. It’s certainly not the first cycle where this has happened but it’s drawing a lot of press attention this year for some reason. The New York Times has jumped on the bandwagon now, demanding that Chris Christie either pull up stakes and go home to “clean out the barn” in New Jersey or, failing that, abandon the Garden State once and for all.

It’s that time in the ever-long presidential campaign when candidates lacking money and mojo are starting to go back to their plows. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey should join them.

Mr. Christie has been called a lot of things, but until Wednesday’s debate performance, “barely there” was not among them. In eight minutes of speaking time, Mr. Christie said little of substance. As for his parting pitch that he’s “deadly serious about changing this culture” of government, well, his constituents in New Jersey know better…

The point is that New Jersey is in trouble, and the governor is off pursuing a presidential run that’s turned out to be nothing more than a vanity project. Mr. Christie’s numbers are in the basement, and he’s nearly out of campaign cash. This is his moment, all right: to go home and use the rest of his term to clean out the barn, as Speaker John Boehner would say.

I’ll be the first to admit that there were plenty of people debating on Wednesday night who must be making the public wonder why they’re still hanging around. Of course, those questions were cropping up before they took the stage. Dave Weigel had a column at the Washington Post the previous day where he dug into the mystery of what keeps some of the folks polling at 2% or less out on the trail. Part of it has to do with the lesson some of them learned from Tim Pawlenty four years ago.

Pawlenty understood that optimism and where it came from. “That’s like hanging around the basketball rim waiting for a rebound,” he said. “Sometimes, it does happen. If you’re a candidate whose already put two years of your life into this, you could do worse than try.”

The wait for a rebound would not be lonely. Santorum and the other candidates in the undercard debate — including Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C) and Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal — have regularly publicized their quixotic swings through the early voting states despite polling at less than 1 percent in national surveys.

For some of these candidates who can’t even claim to be fully on the bottom rung of the ladder at this point, I don’t think they ever truly believed in their hearts that they were going to be setting up shop in the Oval Office. They had other reasons to run. A few might be using the free media and elevation of their national profile to strengthen their own personal business position. (Looking at you, Governor Pataki.) Others may have loftier goals, such as Lindsey Graham. From the beginning I’ve felt that he really only wanted to be there for the dual purposes of getting his national security and foreign affairs positions into the public debate while also making sure that Rand Paul didn’t get the nomination.

But some of the others still believe they might win this thing in the end. I think those folks are following a lesson plan taught not by T-Paw, but by Rick Santorum. When everyone else had been left for dead on the side of the political highway in 2011 and 2012, Rick was out there hanging on to enough money to keep gas in his truck. And when the rest of the conservative challengers to Mitt had taken their shot and fallen to Earth, Rick was still there as the last man standing. It didn’t wind up accomplishing much since he only managed to land a handful of delegates but he claimed the distinction of at least taking the second place trophy in a crowded field.

But the dynamic of that race has been turned on its head this year. Last time around there was one establishment candidate who nobody in the grassroots wanted and a series of wannabes who were waiting for their chance to be the anti-Mitt. This time a pair of complete outsiders are locking up half the primary vote while those with at least some Washington or state government experience jockey for a shot at being the anti-Trump or anti-Carson. That might be a smart move in the end, but for now you have to wonder about the math. We don’t have one Romney this time, but two. If Mitt had stumbled badly there would have been a vast swath of the electorate up for grabs. This time, if either Trump or Carson have a crash and burn episode, might not their supporters simply swing over to the other one?

I would like to see some of the bottom tier candidates drop out at this point and find out if their disparate supporters will clump up around one of the few who remain. The problem is, aside from the kiddie table debate, it’s hard to feel very fair in saying who should stay or go. None of the non-Trump / Carson contenders are that far below the best of the second tier. Still, I can’t help but feel that the next debates might be productive if we lost all four of the undercard team, plus Rand Paul, Christie, Kasich and Huckabee.

As always, your mileage may vary.