For those who tuned in to the third and final presidential debate, you likely noticed that the mainstream media's post-event "analysis" honed in on (or rather, manufactured) one narrative above all others: that Trump would not say whether he would accept the results of the election. 

This statement, to the media elite, was a "horrifying" revelation and is surely "political suicide" for Trump. They can't possibly imagine what on earth would prompt Trump to question "225 years of American democracy."

Really?

• Journalists donated to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign 27 to 1 compared to Trump's
• Through Wikileaks, we've been provided proof that major media outlets colluded with the Clinton campaign to provide her favorable coverage
• We learned that the Democratic National Committee engaged in a series of actions to sabotage Bernie Sanders' campaign
• Through Project Veritas, that the DNC and Clinton campaigns paid Democratic operatives to incite violence (often exploiting disabled people, no less) at Trump rallies in order to create a false narrative that Trump supporters are violent
• Through Project Veritas we have proof that these same operatives retained by the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the White House engage in voter fraud on behalf of the Democratic Party 
• We've learned through Pew Research that millions (1 in 8) of voter registrations are invalid or seriously flawed -- as many as 4 million registrants combined are either deceased or registered to vote in more than one state. 
• Through Wikileaks we learned that the Clinton campaign itself admitted to losing the 2008 primary because Barack Obama's campaign "filled the caucuses with ineligible voters" (this is now the same voter fraud they claim is a Republican pipe-dream). 
• We have allegations of quid pro quo between the State Department and FBI
• We've learned through Wikileaks that the State Department and Department of Justice colluded with the Clinton campaign on that very email investigation, which ended in a decision by Comey not to prosecute Clinton. We have federal agents screaming "foul" and "corruption" over this

So yes, when Trump was asked if he would just blindly "accept whatever results come from the election," it was far from incredible to say: "We will see." That the media have contrived a way to turn this statement into an "issue" is absurd, and to suggest it will sway voters' minds and lose Trump the election, is equally absurd. 

For an example of how mainstream media are spinning this narrative, below is a transcript and segment (provided by Newsbusters) of ex-Newsweek editor Howard Fineman decrying Trump's election-results remarks:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: This is three elections in a row, he's threatening to delegitimize. It is a pattern, and leads to the suggestion that Robert Costa of the Washington Post said tonight that will not validate the election results. Pretty scary stuff. 

HOWARD FINEMAN: Well, Chris, to me, it wasn't just what he said that was shocking, it was the way he said it. There was a casual contempt in Donald Trump's voice for 225 years of American political tradition. Donald Trump is a force for chaos. He always has been. If he can't take something and win something himself, he will destroy that thing and make it impossible for other people to have it. What he's — what he's really doing tonight, among other things, in addition to challenging the whole system, is saying that if “I can't have the presidency, I'm going to make it not worth Hillary's time to have it.” That's what he's doing.

Yes, the media are gasping in horror over Trump's "unprecedented" remark. They seem to have forgotten Al Gore.