The losing team, Kelly-Baier-Wallace, spent more talking in aggregate more than any single candidate. The questions they asked--beginning with the "raise your hand" poll--were the stuff of opposition research. Further: What was all of that yuking it up with one another during the debate and following the debate? Good natured back and forth between the press and the candidates? Or, an attempt to appear to the television audience to have put all of the nasty business aside because that's all it was--nasty business--and get back to life?
What needs to be understood is that this debate was all about FoxNews, not the RNC debate.
Knowing the debate was going to have a huge audience, Roger Ayles designed the format of the so-called "debate" to be a FoxNews team promo. The goal? To convince non-FoxNews viewers of the first debate that the FoxNews team really is "fair and balanced" not the megyn-phone of the fringe lunatics of the right wing. That is, to increase overall viewership for the long haul by using the debates as a means to that end.
If the focus of Team Kelly-Baier-Wallace was to derail The Donald, it didn't work. He got the most mic time, didn't alter his message or personality, and--if the post-debate polls are accurate--didn't shoot himself in the foot. If the goal was to derail the Republicans, in general, that also didn't work. Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson distinguished themselves, in particular. Governors Walker and Kasich advanced their cause.
The big loser for voters: Megyn Kelly. The big winner for Roger Ayles: Megyn Kelly. The rebranding of FoxNews is well underway. Even CNN knows it.
Let the discussion begin...