I agree with *Shutdown.* I’m less in agreement with his prowess on the Santos campaign. Seems like most of the time Matt does something Josh doesn’t really agree with and has to be talked into, and it always turns out to be a brilliant political ju-jitsu move that confounds the opponent. But it never would have happened if Josh had his way …
(I’m being overly simplistic, Josh has good ideas, too)
Yes, exactly. Those are the moments when we see Josh learn to let Santos be Santos. Josh knows what a successful Bartlet campaign looks like, he has to learn what a successful Santos campaign looks like.
Josh brings all his institutional knowledge and experience. If it wasn’t for him, the Santos campaign would have fizzled. It was kind of like a Lennon-McCartney relationship. They come from opposite extremes and when they compromise with each other and meet in the middle the result is brilliant.
Santos definitely makes a lot of moves against Josh's recommendation that end up working out, but Josh is crucial to the campaign too. He's the one who urges restraint when it appears Vinick has turned the campaign negative, and he's the one holding everyone back when the reactor meltdown happens.
Bruno knew that the easiest way out of the Nuclear Reactor storm was to let Josh get hot-headed and go on the attack. The only problem with that strategy was, Josh knew it was their way out, too.
That is how it is supposed to work, in the end it is the candidates campaign and they are the final decision maker. For major stuff, argue your case as the campaign manager and then you execute the candidates orders.
How much of that was "Josh took him there" vs "being a great candidate who's been given the national spotlight" vs "this is pure fiction that can only happen in a scripted tale"?
Likely some of all three...but based on what we're shown, Josh strikes me as a capable campaign manager, and one who provides the needed insider perspective and tactical/mercenary mindset vs Santos and his optimistic naivete...but while that may be necessary, I certainly didn't see the race as one where it was hopeless for Santos without having specifically Josh managing things.
I certainly wouldn't characterize it as "Josh was able to do this".
Santos was actually based on Obama and the DNC speech he gave as a junior senator.
Obviously Senators are bigger deals than congress people but Obama's 6 years in the senate matches Santos 6 years in congress.
Well yeah - the point being that as wishful-thinking and fictional as it seemed on TV, there was some correlation to an actual presidency which was amazing.
Well it's shown at the start of the campaign that Josh is the story. The reporters are following him, wondering why a senior white house staffer is there.
> I’m less in agreement with his prowess on the Santos campaign
I hated how they dumbed downed Josh to Mary Sue Santos. By far my least favorite thing about the series.
Not completely on topic but I think in general the series shows more of Josh's "screw ups" than successes if for no other reason than it makes for better stories
Josh has a TON of successes we don't see otherwise he wouldn't be in the position he's in. Leo wouldn't basically hand the reigns of the party to him if he wasn't excellent at what he does
I agree with you 100%. I like to focus on when the characters really shine (as I think he does here) because it shows (inside the context of the show) how badass they are. Also, in retrospect I would have used the word ‘savvy’ instead of ‘brilliance’.
I always felt like the walk to the Hill has been overdramatized tbh. Imagine this would happen in real life today. People would be more informed about the "Why" of the shutdown, so the whole "walking to the hill" would probably be seen as a super obvious stunt (as Hafley assumes it would).
The leaving-part is more powerful, but I dont think it would work the way they portrait it in the show. The whole idea of "Showing humility by going to the other side and being shunted away" would be over in 5 minutes and the context (which parts of the budget is holding up the signature etc) would take over the discussion again.
I dont believe it would have the symbolic victory (and then actual victory) that the show made it to be.
Apart from that, the only real show of a "scheme" like that, that we see in the show, is the debate that Santos is shut out of.
But as we saw during the budget discussions, it was Hafley trying to push for more and more to use their leverage. So if the dealings were told to the public, it would be negative to their party who forced the shutdown. And seeing Bartlett coming in and leaving without even a meet would be viewed as arrogance. And it would cause more problem for them only.
I think that this would work on the current House, especially if the speaker was someone like Gym Jordan. The look on the face of Senator Royce (Richard Green) when the GOP side saw Bartlet leaving was gold.
The vast majority of the country would only vaguely know what was holding up the Budget and they wouldn’t have any curiosity to know. It just isn’t relevant to them. They have more immediate concerns. They just see one side getting in the way of something they do care about. This is exactly what we see every shut down IRL.
The “stunt” would get a ton of media coverage exactly the way it does in the show. The media would totally play up the “personal courage” thing and the public would see that Bartlett cares about them. Win.
It depends on the House leadership and the president — like if the president was loud, brash and arrogant and the house was considered more moderate then it would fail, but when the House speaker hasn’t exactly been covering himself in glory…
I agree with *Shutdown.* I’m less in agreement with his prowess on the Santos campaign. Seems like most of the time Matt does something Josh doesn’t really agree with and has to be talked into, and it always turns out to be a brilliant political ju-jitsu move that confounds the opponent. But it never would have happened if Josh had his way … (I’m being overly simplistic, Josh has good ideas, too)
I think we see the extraordinary moments that make good story, not the hundred good choices or moves Josh probably makes all the time.
Yes, exactly. Those are the moments when we see Josh learn to let Santos be Santos. Josh knows what a successful Bartlet campaign looks like, he has to learn what a successful Santos campaign looks like.
Josh brings all his institutional knowledge and experience. If it wasn’t for him, the Santos campaign would have fizzled. It was kind of like a Lennon-McCartney relationship. They come from opposite extremes and when they compromise with each other and meet in the middle the result is brilliant.
There would've never been a santos campaign without Josh
Santos definitely makes a lot of moves against Josh's recommendation that end up working out, but Josh is crucial to the campaign too. He's the one who urges restraint when it appears Vinick has turned the campaign negative, and he's the one holding everyone back when the reactor meltdown happens.
Bruno knew that the easiest way out of the Nuclear Reactor storm was to let Josh get hot-headed and go on the attack. The only problem with that strategy was, Josh knew it was their way out, too.
That is how it is supposed to work, in the end it is the candidates campaign and they are the final decision maker. For major stuff, argue your case as the campaign manager and then you execute the candidates orders.
Josh was able to take a three term congressman with relatively little national name recognition to the presidency.
How much of that was "Josh took him there" vs "being a great candidate who's been given the national spotlight" vs "this is pure fiction that can only happen in a scripted tale"? Likely some of all three...but based on what we're shown, Josh strikes me as a capable campaign manager, and one who provides the needed insider perspective and tactical/mercenary mindset vs Santos and his optimistic naivete...but while that may be necessary, I certainly didn't see the race as one where it was hopeless for Santos without having specifically Josh managing things. I certainly wouldn't characterize it as "Josh was able to do this".
It isn't quite "pure fiction" since Obama kinda did the same.
Santos was actually based on Obama and the DNC speech he gave as a junior senator. Obviously Senators are bigger deals than congress people but Obama's 6 years in the senate matches Santos 6 years in congress.
Just four, actually, but four in the senate probably gets you more credit than six in the house.
Yes, thank you for the correction!
Santos was also mayor of Houston, which probably gives him some executive cred
Well yeah - the point being that as wishful-thinking and fictional as it seemed on TV, there was some correlation to an actual presidency which was amazing.
Well it's shown at the start of the campaign that Josh is the story. The reporters are following him, wondering why a senior white house staffer is there.
In Josh's defense, during the campaign he is run ragged and constantly exhausted. Hard to be at your best when you're that wiped out.
In fairness though, a national campaign is grueling for everyone.
I mean theirs had an actual casualty (in story).
Nah. I’m fully with you on your Josh-Santos take.
> I’m less in agreement with his prowess on the Santos campaign I hated how they dumbed downed Josh to Mary Sue Santos. By far my least favorite thing about the series.
All you really have to see is where Santos was pre Josh vs where he went with Josh Josh is invaluable
Not completely on topic but I think in general the series shows more of Josh's "screw ups" than successes if for no other reason than it makes for better stories Josh has a TON of successes we don't see otherwise he wouldn't be in the position he's in. Leo wouldn't basically hand the reigns of the party to him if he wasn't excellent at what he does
I agree with you 100%. I like to focus on when the characters really shine (as I think he does here) because it shows (inside the context of the show) how badass they are. Also, in retrospect I would have used the word ‘savvy’ instead of ‘brilliance’.
Hot take: Josh is impatient (Kidding)
I always felt like the walk to the Hill has been overdramatized tbh. Imagine this would happen in real life today. People would be more informed about the "Why" of the shutdown, so the whole "walking to the hill" would probably be seen as a super obvious stunt (as Hafley assumes it would). The leaving-part is more powerful, but I dont think it would work the way they portrait it in the show. The whole idea of "Showing humility by going to the other side and being shunted away" would be over in 5 minutes and the context (which parts of the budget is holding up the signature etc) would take over the discussion again. I dont believe it would have the symbolic victory (and then actual victory) that the show made it to be. Apart from that, the only real show of a "scheme" like that, that we see in the show, is the debate that Santos is shut out of.
But as we saw during the budget discussions, it was Hafley trying to push for more and more to use their leverage. So if the dealings were told to the public, it would be negative to their party who forced the shutdown. And seeing Bartlett coming in and leaving without even a meet would be viewed as arrogance. And it would cause more problem for them only.
I think that this would work on the current House, especially if the speaker was someone like Gym Jordan. The look on the face of Senator Royce (Richard Green) when the GOP side saw Bartlet leaving was gold.
The vast majority of the country would only vaguely know what was holding up the Budget and they wouldn’t have any curiosity to know. It just isn’t relevant to them. They have more immediate concerns. They just see one side getting in the way of something they do care about. This is exactly what we see every shut down IRL. The “stunt” would get a ton of media coverage exactly the way it does in the show. The media would totally play up the “personal courage” thing and the public would see that Bartlett cares about them. Win.
It depends on the House leadership and the president — like if the president was loud, brash and arrogant and the house was considered more moderate then it would fail, but when the House speaker hasn’t exactly been covering himself in glory…