Vinick/Santos Debate?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Bah... this is why I stopped watching West Wing. Does ANYONE in their right minds think someone like Santos would become the President? Pick a Democrat Latino Congressman from Texas. You think he's got a shot?

And a pro-choice Republican who isn't really big on God? He survives the primaries? HELLLLLO!!

Thats why its so interesting to me-- I think they get more hamstrung if they follow too closely what is actually happening out in the real US

You have the staunch religious democrat and the non religious republican . . I love it . . . and actually part of me thinks that it could be a super smart thing for ther republicans to do in an election-- put on a softer face

Would you realy want to see the show with a Bush clone against a Clinton clone?

[Ramo]

One of the more fantastic parts of the storyline is that the Republican has a lock on California, but the Democrat has Texas...

Does anyone really think that this would happen if, say, Guilliani ran against Richardson?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ramo
One of the more fantastic parts of the storyline is that the Republican has a lock on California, but the Democrat has Texas...

With a Latino candidate isn't taking Texas possible?

Also, although the red/blue state thing has arisen in the last two elections didn't recent presidents like Clinton and Reagan have much broader support??

[Imran Siddiqui]

Would you realy want to see the show with a Bush clone against a Clinton clone?

Well... seeing as how the last Barlett election was exactly that.. (though Brolin as the Republican wasn't given much air time).

I'd like to see it a BIT more realistic. You can have a moderate Republican, but he's gotta at least say blah blah God and has to be at least against late term abortion to survive the primary.

Santos is a Congressman, which have an even worse track record than Senators when running for President. They are virtually unknown beyond their districts and the way he won the primary was so farcical, I was stunned (though they hired Jimmy Smits, so I knew he'd win... even if it took some hokey speech in a deadlocked Democratic primary... though I'd MUCH rather see nominee Al Bundy ).

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Would you realy want to see the show with a Bush clone against a Clinton clone?

Well... seeing as how the last Barlett election was exactly that.. (though Brolin as the Republican wasn't given much air time).

No -- They talked about Brolin's character for a while but he didn't appear in many episodes IIRC. I can only think of two... the debate and the night CJ's secret agent (Mark Harmon) got shot. That show was also one of Bartlett's best lines which went something like this

"In case you're wondering, tonight, when you said ' crime, what you gonna do', that was when I decided to kick your ass"


Note I am currently watching season 4 on DVD and realize that I really miss the Sam Seabourne character . It wasn't the actor, it was just a very very good character.

[Zkribbler]

I did like the episode where the major pro-choice group endorsed Vinick on the theory that their support would cause other Republican candidates to come out pro choice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That sounds... dumb. Though I do like that they are moving away from "The Left Wing" ways.

[flash9286]

I miss the old show that didn't rely on chessy plots to advance the show. It had alot better writing back then. The space shuttle leak story was stupid and boring, but the episodes about the primaries (excluding the last couple about the convention) were pretty good.

[Ramo]

With a Latino candidate isn't taking Texas possible?

Also, although the red/blue state thing has arisen in the last two elections didn't recent presidents like Clinton and Reagan have much broader support??

CA and TX both have large Latino populations. If being Latino would be enough to swing TX, one would think that CA would be untouchable by Vinick.

Reagan won both California and Texas. Clinton (like Kerry and Gore) won only California.

The issue isn't the broadness of support, but ideological compatibility. If Santos isn't moderate enough to win CA, he certainly wouldn't win TX.

[Ramo]

That sounds... dumb. Though I do like that they are moving away from "The Left Wing" ways.

NARAL pressured a pro-life opponent to Chaffee Langevin, out of the race, and then endorsed Chaffee (who voted for plenty of pro-life judges), before a Democratic candidate (both pro-choice) was even nominated. Yes, they are dumb.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lincoln Chaffee is a pro-choice Senator. Obviously he doesn't vote on one issue.

Did NARAL think that endorsing him would bring out pro-choice Republicans?

[DinoDoc]

People watch the West Wing? Still?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ramo
[
The issue isn't the broadness of support, but ideological compatibility. If Santos isn't moderate enough to win CA, he certainly wouldn't win TX.

Would being from a state have an impact or enough of one to sway things? I thought the theory was that they are each INCREDIBLY popular in their home states and being senators would have had to win state iwde votes before.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by flash9286
I miss the old show that didn't rely on chessy plots to advance the show. It had alot better writing back then. The space shuttle leak story was stupid and boring, but the episodes about the primaries (excluding the last couple about the convention) were pretty good.

I agree. I started back 6 months ago in season 1 and am now in season 4 and I do think the show was "better" back in those years. I just think the dialogue has gotten quite a bit less sharp and witty

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Flubber
Would being from a state have an impact or enough of one to sway things? I thought the theory was that they are each INCREDIBLY popular in their home states and being senators would have had to win state iwde votes before.

Santos isn't a Senator. And from what I saw last year (haven't watched any this year) he wouldn't be very popular in most of Texas.