Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 122,125 (click to see context) :
* EstablishingCharacterMoment: Each political candidate, having privately dismissed the ethanol subsidy as a waste and a boondoggle to their staff, is given the same opportunity to publicly support or condemn it at the Corn Growers Expo, and how they respond gives a clear insight into their character at this point:
** Russell enthusiastically makes the pledge; he's hypocritical, two-faced and will gladly sell out his principles for power and advantage.
** Santos makes the pledge, but is clearly reluctant and unenthusiastic; he has firm convictions and genuinely believes in them, but is clearly pressured into going against them by circumstances.
** Vinick refuses to make the pledge; he sticks to his guns no matter what (and is also old, experienced and in a secure enough position to feel able to do so).
** Russell enthusiastically makes the pledge; he's hypocritical, two-faced and will gladly sell out his principles for power and advantage.
** Santos makes the pledge, but is clearly reluctant and unenthusiastic; he has firm convictions and genuinely believes in them, but is clearly pressured into going against them by circumstances.
** Vinick refuses to make the pledge; he sticks to his guns no matter what (and is also old, experienced and in a secure enough position to feel able to do so).
Changed line(s) 129 (click to see context) from:
* RememberTheNewGuy: This is the first time we're seeing Vinick's campaign team, but there's clearly established relationships already.
to:
* RememberTheNewGuy: This is the first time we're seeing Vinick's campaign team, but there's clearly established relationships already.already.
* WhatYouAreInTheDark: Each political candidate, having privately dismissed the ethanol subsidy as a waste and a boondoggle to their staff, is given the same opportunity to publicly support or condemn it at the Corn Growers Expo, and how they respond gives a clear insight into their character at this point:
** Russell enthusiastically makes the pledge; he's hypocritical, two-faced and will gladly sell out his principles for power and advantage.
** Santos makes the pledge, but is clearly reluctant and unenthusiastic; he has firm convictions and genuinely believes in them, but is clearly pressured into going against them by circumstances.
** Vinick refuses to make the pledge; he sticks to his guns no matter what (and is also old, experienced and in a secure enough position to feel able to do so).
* WhatYouAreInTheDark: Each political candidate, having privately dismissed the ethanol subsidy as a waste and a boondoggle to their staff, is given the same opportunity to publicly support or condemn it at the Corn Growers Expo, and how they respond gives a clear insight into their character at this point:
** Russell enthusiastically makes the pledge; he's hypocritical, two-faced and will gladly sell out his principles for power and advantage.
** Santos makes the pledge, but is clearly reluctant and unenthusiastic; he has firm convictions and genuinely believes in them, but is clearly pressured into going against them by circumstances.
** Vinick refuses to make the pledge; he sticks to his guns no matter what (and is also old, experienced and in a secure enough position to feel able to do so).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* EstablishingCharacterMoment: Each political candidate, having privately dismissed the ethanol subsidy as a waste and a boondoggle to their staff, is given the same opportunity to publicly support or condemn it at the Corn Growers Expo, and how they respond gives a clear insight into their character at this point:
** Russell enthusiastically makes the pledge; he's hypocritical, two-faced and will gladly sell out his principles for power and advantage.
** Santos makes the pledge, but is clearly reluctant and unenthusiastic; he has firm convictions and genuinely believes in them, but is clearly pressured into going against them by circumstances.
** Vinick refuses to make the pledge; he sticks to his guns no matter what (and is also old, experienced and in a secure enough position to feel able to do so).
** Russell enthusiastically makes the pledge; he's hypocritical, two-faced and will gladly sell out his principles for power and advantage.
** Santos makes the pledge, but is clearly reluctant and unenthusiastic; he has firm convictions and genuinely believes in them, but is clearly pressured into going against them by circumstances.
** Vinick refuses to make the pledge; he sticks to his guns no matter what (and is also old, experienced and in a secure enough position to feel able to do so).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* FramingDevice: The episode is essentially three vignettes focussing on a main character from a particular campaign (Josh for Santos' campaign, Donna for Russell's campaign, and Vinick for his own campaign) as they get up in the morning, watch the same news broadcast while they make breakfast, and engage in various campaign activities over the course of their working day, culminating at an appearance at the Corn Growers Expo where they will be asked to make a pledge supporting ethanol subsidies.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 118 (click to see context) from:
* AlmightyJanitor: Iowa is depicted as something like this in terms of presidential primaries; it's one of the least populous states in the country, thus making it largely irrelevant in political terms, but the fact that its nominating caucuses are the first in the country means it holds outsized influence in terms of political influence, as candidates have to give it attention and make pledges they otherwise wouldn't in order to win votes and thus gain momentum into later primaries. The ethanol pledge is a prime example of this, as all three candidates we follow clearly consider it a boondoggle that only exists because candidates have to support it if they want any hope of running an even half-successful presidential campaign, and Vinick dismissively points out that if Iowa was even third in the primary calendars instead of first it would be taken no more seriously than the South Dakota primaries.
to:
* AlmightyJanitor: Iowa is depicted as something like this in terms of presidential primaries; it's one of the least populous states in the country, thus making it largely irrelevant in political terms, but the fact that its nominating caucuses are the first in the country means it holds outsized influence in terms of political influence, as candidates have to give it attention and make pledges they otherwise wouldn't in order to win votes and thus gain momentum into later primaries. The ethanol pledge is a prime example of this, as all three candidates we follow clearly consider it a boondoggle that only exists because candidates have to support it if they want any hope of running an even half-successful presidential campaign, and Vinick dismissively points out that if Iowa was even third in the primary calendars instead of first it would be taken no more seriously than the South Dakota primaries. (For context: South Dakota, a neighbouring state, is slightly larger and less populous than Iowa and, as its primaries are held later in the year, is generally considered more or less irrelevant.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* AlmightyJanitor: Iowa is depicted as something like this in terms of presidential primaries; it's one of the least populous states in the country, thus making it largely irrelevant in political terms, but the fact that its nominating caucuses are the first in the country means it holds outsized influence in terms of political influence, as candidates have to give it attention and make pledges they otherwise wouldn't in order to win votes and thus gain momentum into later primaries. The ethanol pledge is a prime example of this, as all three candidates we follow clearly consider it a boondoggle that only exists because candidates have to support it if they want any hope of running an even half-successful presidential campaign, and Vinick dismissively points out that if Iowa was even third in the primary calendars instead of first it would be taken no more seriously than the South Dakota primaries.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
* BothSidesHaveAPoint: Santos wants to be true to his own beliefs and come out against the ethanol pledge, believing it to be a rip-off that doesn't work and largely benefits major corporations. Josh points out that these corporations nevertheless employ a lot of people in the state and that, given their campaign's weaknesses, it's important to make some compromises in order to give themselves a fighting chance of actually getting elected and making positive changes when in office. Santos eventually gives in and makes the ethanol pledge, though he's clearly unhappy about doing so.
Changed line(s) 121 (click to see context) from:
* {{Hypocrite}}: All three presidential candidates we follow believe that ethanol fuel is a waste, but only Vinick is willing to say so publicly. There is a matter of degrees with the other two, however; Russell enthusiastically takes the ethanol pledge despite his personal skepticism, demonstrating what a complete sell-out he is, whereas Santos is clearly reluctant and only does so to keep his flailing campaign alive.
to:
* {{Hypocrite}}: All three presidential candidates we follow privately believe that ethanol fuel is a waste, but only Vinick is willing to say so publicly. There is a matter of degrees with the other two, however; Russell enthusiastically takes the ethanol pledge despite his personal skepticism, demonstrating what a complete sell-out he is, whereas Santos is clearly reluctant and only does so to keep his flailing campaign alive.
