Written by: Ms. Taylor Hubbs of the Kelli Ward Connection
The Democrats take to the national stage to spin a narrative about fairness, about their ability to actually address the issues and then they take to an actual stage and all of that goes out the window.
On September 26th, 2016, millions of viewers tuned in to watch the First Presidential Debate. This debate generated the most views since a debate in 1980 between Carter and Reagan, with an approximate 84 million viewers- not including those viewers who streamed the debate online. Right after the conclusion of the debate, pundits took to analyzing and the people spoke their piece. For the most part, Trump supporters declared a victory for their candidate and Clinton supporters felt the same sense of victory for their candidate. No matter who you believe to have won the debate, I can tell you who lost: the American people. In this debate the American people were robbed of fairness and a discussion of topical issues that matter.
Going into the evening there was already an elephant in the room, or should I say donkey? Wesley Alexander, in his analysis of the debate, asserts that NBC (the network that employs Lester Holt) has donated 5.6 million dollars to the Democratic Party. The apparent position bias of Lester Holt proved to be a challenge for Trump and a frustration for many Americans, both those rooting for the GOP nominee and those looking for a fair and impartial debate. Dr. Kelli Ward’s frustrations with the first presidential debate stem from the displayed bias of Lester Holt. The apparent incorporation of “facts” that primed the questions posed to the candidates appeared to be right out of the democratic playbook, claims Ward. Between the behind the scenes donations and the clear and present bias displayed by Holt, it’s clear that the Democrats, whose entire political platform is based on equality and fairness, orchestrated the evening to their benefit.
Additionally, the American people lost out on any substantive policy debate under Lester Holt’s moderation. The debate evening was filled with discussions over tax returns and birther questions rather than substantive issues that matter to the people like foreign policy and the economy. Holt’s moderation strategy came off as a pivoted maneuver to afford Clinton the opportunity to essentially run the debate, even at one point allowing Clinton to demand a restart of the timer, in order to ensure she receive her full allotted time for rebuttal. The amount of ad hominem within the debate, from both sides, was substantial and appeared to replace the substantive material that the American people craved. After an hour and a half of debate, Trump declared victory despite the unfairness and lack of serious questions and Clinton also declared her clear victory on stage, while Americans were left frustrated and unsatisfied.
On October 9th Americans will once again turn on their TVs with high expectations and a want for a real political discussion. The second debate will be a chance for redemption for both candidates and for political journalistic capacity.