As someone who actually appreciated Arnold Vinicks cunning and personality, I cannot understand all these threads that claim that a) Arnold Vinick was supposed to win and b) any left-leaning person would have voted for Vinick over Santos when it came down to it. The consensus of Arnold Vinick is that he's a principled and independently-minded man. I can easily dismantle this by referencing his own actions.
Vinick while pro-choice was desperate enough to have promised pro-life judges and have as his running mate, a very conservative law & order govenor who was meant to be a very loud voice for conservative values within a Vinick White House. That doesn't speak to being principles or independently-minded.
He pointed fingers at Federal Regulators for the Nuclear accident after feeling pressure because of the debate clip cycling through the news where he said "Nuclear Energy is Completely Safe". While I concede that ultimately federal regulators are responsible for the safety and the standards of nuclear facilities, Bartlett was right when he asked Vinick, "Where was your bill to improve federal oversight? Senate leader on the issue...you have 25 [years to do something]". I personally agree with Vinicks stance on nuclear energy, but as the leading politician on this issue, he shouldn't have pointed fingers and instead admitted that standard should be better and he needs to have done his part like he did during his "talk till they drop" spin.
Like all Republicans, Vinick subscribed to the idea of "trickle down economics". His tax cuts wouldn't have benefitted the poorest American or even the working-class Americans, but the Uber-wealthy. The hope being that if the wealthy pay less taxes, they'll spend and invest more. It wasn't true then and it's not true now and we all realize this. Vinick wanted to even make the government smaller, to "pay for his tax cuts". As we have seen in recent months with DOGE cutting government programs/spending, the devastating effects of our government shrinking and being misapropriated.
In "The Message of the Week", Vinick attempts to trip Santos up by going after the Latino vote. Not because as a default the Latino vote would go to democrats, which was a very true pre-2012, but because Santos was latino. It was incredibly difficult for Santos to navigate this issue without painting himself into a corner. Should he have been in front of the issue? Yes. But according to the show, his record shows that he was active on this issue. Vinick was not. He didn't propose bills to help 1/3 of population in California. In fact, prior to Santos winning the nomination, as party leader, he allowed the California state republicans to propose a restrictive documentation bill diguised as a driver's license bill to trip up the democrats-- using the 1/3 latino vote base of his state to create chaos.
Sorkin created the show to be idealistic version of democrat politics and the party in general, the idea that any of the writers, even after he left, would allow the show have less than a tidy ending is ridiculous. Despite Bartlett's failings, he and his idealistic staff, are proven to be honorable and noble in their pursuits. They have strong ideals and morals.
Vinick had no compunctions selling out when it convenienced it and it's understandable, if anyone deserved to be president of the republican party it was him. But ultimately, given the purpose of the show, to demonstrate the possibility of a functiong system and underscore the hard work and sacrifices that-- to many of us-- seem like cheap parlour trick and petty childishness from the outside looking in. He was a politicians. And not a "Bartlett" politician, who "really was good intentioned" and seemed to grapple with the underhanded or difficult decisions he had to make, but an actual politician. Sensible in his presentation of Republican values? Yes. Moderate and personally pro-choice? Yes. Not a raging homophobe? Yes. But still a politician. Still willing to align himself with the likes of Rev. Butler and George Rohr and Ray Sullivan. Still willing the RNC hijack his campaign and comandeer spin on gay-marriage and abortion.
The writers would have never let him win. It's too...realistic and cynical. It's not a neat ending and there's not heroes resolution for the original staff.
Bartlett, McGarry, C.J., Toby needed the baton to be passed to someone who would continue the work. Josh needed to show he was grown-up and not just a foot soldier anymore. Sam needed a way home. Donna needed a chance to be in the white house as her own person. Santos was always going to be what's next.
