The results of Election Day, tinged with a tragedy that has been in the making since last December. Discussion and spoilers below:
I have to say, I really didn’t know how the election would turn out. If the series were going to be continuing, I would have assumed that it was going to be Santos. I’d simply have figured the show runners would have wanted to keep the show a Democratic fantasy. But with the show ending, they could just as easily have gone the other way since they weren’t going to have to write it.
Still, the results of the election were overshadowed by the real-life tragic loss of John Spencer’s “Leo McGarry.” The real world and art have become inextricably blurred on the series as Josh–whom I’ve long contended the series is really about–relives the exact same scenario he experienced years before of having the culmination moment of a successful political campaign darkened by the loss of his father, and now his father figure…which happened in real life through the same method of demise that almost took Leo the previous season. You just know Josh is going to blame himself for the loss of Leo since it was his idea to draft him as VP, something that was already touched on in the most recent episode.
Interestingly, the show has also become a GOP fantasy. Imagine having GOP and Democratic candidates who, in a narrowly contested election, are both too noble to pursue legal remedies. Never happen. Never. Happen. So I suppose since “West Wing” is the land of Never Happen, there’s always the possibility that Santos really does nominate Vinnick to be his VP, with the promise of a real, bipartisan America that actually IS united, rather than just paying lipservice to the notion in the country’s name.
I wonder how brutal it was for the actors to react to the news. Bet summoning tears was no trick.
PAD
• 
According to an article in the New York Times today, the plan was for Vinick to win. That was changed by John Spencer’s passing, because the producers felt that for Santos to lose both his friend/running-mate and teh election would be too much sadness to pile on him.
I agree that playing the bad news must have been both easier and harder for John Spencer’s castmates and colleagues. Next week’s episodes, with Bartlet and Lyman as Leo’s pall-bearers, must have been dreadful.
Note that the Democratic ticket won by a whopping 4 electoral votes. And that it was established that the Republicans still control the Senate. If only a few electors don’t vote for Leo, no VP candidate will receive a majority. In that case, the Senate decides between the top two Electoral vote getters. And the Republican establishment would probably prefer their VP candidate over Vinnick as VP to boot. And, as mentioned in passing, the situation is unprecedented, so it’s not clear if Santos can name a replacement VP until January 21st, assuming that Leo wins the vote…or if he can name a replacement before then, the DNC has to approve.
Combining all that with the last show being Bartlett’s last day in office, I’m not sure there is a way to get Vinnick in as VP and have it shown, other than Santos announcing in advance of the electoral vote that on January 20th at 1:00 p.m. he’ll be sending Vinnick’s nomination to the Senate.
“West Wing” has been the land of “Never Happen” for quite a while. A pro-choice Republican making it through the South-heavy Super Tuesday? Nope. A Democrat who wants to up-end the union heavy school systems? Not really.
I really miss John Spencer. The show just isn’t the same without him.
Combining all that with the last show being Bartlett’s last day in office, I’m not sure there is a way to get Vinnick in as VP and have it shown…
I hadn’t heard about the last show being Bartlett’s last day in office, but even so, I gotta believe we’re also going to see the tail-end of the several-years-in-the-future flash forward that started the season. And in that time frame, there should be opportunity for exposition confirming the Santos’s Veep…
Absolutely no question that the tears were easy. I had the great fortune to have lunch with John (and several of his castmates) many years ago. I was still crying 30 minutes after last night’s episode finished. I can only imagine what those closer to him must have felt.
I felt as though they threw away last week’s episode. The whole season’s been building to this, the day of the election…and it comes across like one of those (wonderful) scenes in the Sorkin era where everyone’s hanging around the Oval Office making small talk while they wait for the results of a poll to come in.
I hope they give Bradley Whitford the focus for a whole episode. I don’t think the show did right by his character; they seemed to have a schizophrenic attitude towards the guy. His role in the campaign was chiefly marked by his giving Santos the wrong advice and the candidate saving the day by ignoring him. And some of the very best scenes of the Post-Sorkin era were Josh’s chats with Leo as he struggled with the problem of “picking a guy” and relied heavily on his old mentor.
They’ve got…what, four episodes left? Five? Let’s hope that they don’t waste ’em and use those five hours to bring a satisfying end to one of the best dramas on TV.
There are five episodes listed on imdb.com. They are:
Season 7, Episode 18: Requiem
16 April 2006
Season 7, Episode 19: Transition
23 April 2006
Season 7, Episode 20: The Last Hurrah
30 April 2006
Season 7, Episode 21: Institutional Memory
7 May 2006
Season 7, Episode 22: Tomorrow
14 May 2006
For what it’s worth, the highly publicized return of Sam Seaborn appears to be in the last two episodes.
PAD
What are the odds on Sam Seaborn as Veep?
At this point, I think the only thing that would make sense in the West Wing world is Vinick being the Veep. He is pretty much the only likeable guy, unless they want to go way out there and go with Sam Seaborn. Even then, Vinick just seems to make more sense. This is current WW sense, not Sorkin WW sense or real word sense.
I was actually surprised at how emotional this episode was. It is always nice when Wells surpasses my low expectations.
Santos would be wise to pick Dr. Nancy as his VP. She compliments Santos where he’s weak (foreign policy), and there’s no doubt that she’s incredibly qualified. Which would make anyone trying to stop her from becoming the first African-American and female VP look like a total schmuck.
(I just hope they don’t find out about her torrid affair with poor Admiral Fitz… oh, wait. I made that all up in my head.)
The Times story is speculation and makes little sense.
As PAD points out, the show, since season 2, has been Josh’s story…especialy these past 2 seasons. You think they’d actually have Josh fail to close the series?
“The Times story is speculation and makes little sense.”
I don’t think you can call it speculation when it comes in the form of declarative sentences spoken on-the-record by an executive producer and writer for the show…
From the category of Odd Minds Think Alike:
Warren Ellis recently discussed WEST WING in a Bad Signal email today and he hit upon the same thematic concept that PAD had expounded on probably last fall, I think? — in the theory that the show is about Josh, not about Bartlett et al. Ellis said that this season is about Josh, and remarked on the parallel between Josh’s father dying during the first campaign and now Leo in this campaign.
*shrug* just thought I’d say.
Pragmatically, Santos can’t name Nancy as VP to make her the first black and female top two member because he himself is the first hispanic President. Remember, as he himself said, he doesn’t have a mandate. While it’s not a good thing, and I wish it weren’t the case, he’d lose a certain amount of political capital by naming another minority (yes, I know, women are a majority) first to the number two post, especially because the person wouldn’t have been elected. She’s a much better choice for either State or Defense.
“If only a few electors don’t vote for Leo, no VP candidate will receive a majority. In that case, the Senate decides between the top two Electoral vote getters.”
For the record, I was going to tell Tom Galloway that he meant the House, not the Senate. Then I thought to check the Constitution and found he was entirely right.
Consider my post one more installment in the Internet’s neverending parade of follies.
I wonder if Vinick is going to be the VP as something to keep the RNC to keep from contesting the election.
I certainly hope not. It almost seems like extortion if that’s the case. I doubt the Vinnick we’ve seen to this point would even want the job under such a circumstance (although, for all we know, he wouldn’t want the job under ANY circumstance. You know what WOULD be appropriate. Secretary of Energy.)
PAD
Regarding Santos’ mandate (or lack thereof), was there any hint on screen what the popular vote was? I froze the frame when they showed the nearly completed red/blue state map, but it didn’t occur to me to see if there was anything about the total national vote. In a close electoral vote like this, that would surely have some impact as to whether Santos could plausibly claim a mandate.
It was not Josh who decided on Leo. It was Bartlet (if I remember) who pitched the idea to Josh, who then wrote in Leo’s name on the Santo’s poster. It was then Bartlet who pushed Leo into doing it. Or am I remembering that wrong?
“It was not Josh who decided on Leo. It was Bartlet (if I remember) who pitched the idea to Josh, who then wrote in Leo’s name on the Santo’s poster. It was then Bartlet who pushed Leo into doing it. Or am I remembering that wrong?”
Yeah, you’re remembering it wrong. Sorry. You’re combining two incidents: The first was from the episode where they were tossing around names of potential candidates in case they had to replace Hoynes. Bartlet wasn’t in the room, I don’t think. I’m pretty sure the way it played out was that Josh said, “I’ve got a wild suggestion for you” and wrote Leo’s name on the board.
The second time, the concluding episode of last season, had Josh going to Leo after Santos had the nomination. Leo asked him if they had a VP candidate in mind, and Josh said they had it narrowed down to one guy, but they weren’t sure if he’d go for it. Leo offered to have Bartlet speak to him, and Josh said he’d already spoken to Bartlet, who supposedly offered to kick the reluctant nominee’s ášš all around the school yard if he refused. Leo, amused, asked who the candidate was. Josh said, “You.” Next thing we see is Leo and Santos side-by-side on the podium.
I’m pretty sure that’s how it happened.
PAD
The show is getting better and better as it rolls out its final episodes. So far I have no complaints about how they’re tying up loose ends. Here’s how I think it’ll play out:
[b]Josh: Chief Of Staff, engaged or married to Donna.
Sam: Deputy Chief Of Staff.
Lou: Communications Director (she was channeling Toby quite a bit in the last few episodes).
Baker: Vice-President.
McNally: Secretary Of Defense.
Vinick: Secretary Of State.
And possibly Annabeth as Press Secretary (but I’m not as certain about that one).[/b]
Why hasn’t anybody suggested either of the two obvious choices? You have an incumbent vice president and the immediate preceding vp, both of whom were serious, legitimate candidates for president only a few months ago. The philosophical differences between either Bingo Bob or Hoynes and Matt Santos can’t be anything in comparison to those between Santos and Vinick.
“Pragmatically, Santos can’t name Nancy as VP to make her the first black and female top two member because he himself is the first hispanic President.”
So?
“Remember, as he himself said, he doesn’t have a mandate.”
He doesn’t need a mandate. All he needs are a simple majority of the House (which the democrats now control) and the Senate (which is something like 48/52 if I heard correctly).
“While it’s not a good thing, and I wish it weren’t the case, he’d lose a certain amount of political capital by naming another minority (yes, I know, women are a majority) first to the number two post, especially because the person wouldn’t have been elected.”
Well, first, nobody in the post will have been elected. And second, I don’t see how he’d lose political capital by appointing a highly qualified person who happens to be a black woman. Nobody in the House or Senate represents the white loony fringe, at least I hope not. In fact, I think it would be that much harder for them to oppose her because she’s a black woman.
It would be different if she was being appointed because she was a black woman, to make a political statement, but wasn’t really qualified. But she is so clearly qualified that it seems her “minority” status could only be a benefit rather than a hindrance.
“She’s a much better choice for either State or Defense.”
She would be a great choice for either of those posts, but I don’t see any reason why she can’t be VP.
“Josh: Chief Of Staff, engaged or married to Donna.”
Donna’s home baking cookies? Somehow I don’t think so.
“You have an incumbent vice president and the immediate preceding vp, both of whom were serious, legitimate candidates for president only a few months ago.”
Hoynes still has the scandal hanging around his head — why would anyone pick him for anything, especially when it requires a confirmation process? And Bingo Bob is still a lightweight, a not-all-that-bright former Congressman who will do nothing to shore up Santos’s weak spots like foreign policy. He needs someone strong in those areas.
I’d be willing to bet that Josh picks Sam to be his Deputy, and my guess for Vinick is that he ends up SecState. I’m still unsure of who Santos should pick as VP, perhaps William DeVane’s Berryhill? And Donna, seems to me, might have enough experience now to be given a shot as Press Secretary, although Annabeth seems like a better choice.
Lynn wrote: “Donna’s home baking cookies? Somehow I don’t think so.”
in response to the speculation that Josh would be Chief of Staff and they’d either be engaged or married.
Just curious, how did you come to that conclusion? How would Josh and Donna being either married or engaged suggest that Donna would stay at home? The thought certainly never crossed my mind when I read the original post.
Rick
“Just curious, how did you come to that conclusion? How would Josh and Donna being either married or engaged suggest that Donna would stay at home? The thought certainly never crossed my mind when I read the original post.”
It wasn’t a literal “conclusion,” as much as an omission that rubbed me the wrong way. It occured to me because she wasn’t listed as having any other job in the administration. The only mention of her was “married to Josh.”
Danny ends up married to CJ, but I’m sure that’s not all that happens to him…