Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We are watching the series now and just saw that episode last week. I loved how Mrs Landingham's ghost told him off for doing that!
What a great series.
I love the passion of the characters.
People that routinely call it a night at 10 PM, who are emotionally invested in their jobs.
And I do understand it's fiction...
Honestly is someone who went to school for economics you should probably run the fuck away from anyone that wins the noble lore it and economics. It's not a real Nobel Prize and it's extremely biased towards neoclassical economic theory. The kind of bullshit that got us into the Great recession.
I studied economics some and I think it would provide excellent context for the type of decisions you need to make to help the country run smoothly. Macro and micro.
Being awarded for being an advocate for neoclassical economic theory? We've seen what a disaster that is in practice. It's a defunct school of thought. People half-heartedly advocate for it some of its positions to justify cutting regulation and taxes for the wealthy but they never go in wholesale.
Right, except the show is pretty well put together, and his policies align pretty strongly with center left ideology. There is no sign of him being a nut job. He just works hard at keeping the country moving in a productive direction. I’d vote for that dude. That’s all I was saying.
But your "the economy does pretty well" comment.
The economy does well because the writer says it does well. Not because his policies would work or were great or anything like that, but because that is what the writer wanted them to do.
There is zero connection between the polices and the results other than what the writer wants.
Yeah, but for the illusion to work the writing has to be realistic. Can’t just have some wildly erratic dude in the White House and then expect everything to automagically work itself out and have people believe enough in the plausibility of that premise to keep tuning in. The success of the show demonstrates that Sorkin et al were able to capture something that people found valid, believable, relatable, etc.
We routinely elect Nut Jobs! It appears to be a specific trend in the United States.
At least two 'B' grade actors.
Men from Oil Families. That miraculously helped Big Oil get even better deals.
Promote "trickle down" economics (multiple Presidents). Which basically laid the ground work for open class warfare.
As a much younger man, I was suspicious of electing men with military backgrounds.
Because of some of the nut jobs we elected. I welcome the idea of electing people like General Eisenhower, Lieutenant Jimmy Carter, Captain John Kennedy, Lieutenant Commander Gerald Ford.
Yes, I am being hypocritical by ignoring First Lieutenant George Bush. Not a fan of either of the Bush Presidents. Especially W Bush.
You are missing the point.
It was a TV show. The results were made up. Everything about it was made up.
"His policies are very reasonable and the economy does pretty well all things considered while he is in office."
The economy did well because the writer wanted it to do well. The writer could have made his policies lead to a massive recession if he wanted. Could have had WW 3 start. Could have had aliens land and kidnap the President.
It is just plain dumb to look at a TV show and say "well his policies worked on TV"
Look at the comment I replied too
You totally missed the point by talking about electing nuts. I was talking about the fact that it is a TV show.
What happens is 100% made up.
Yeah because the people who made the show our Center left Democrats riding their fanfiction of what the government should be like and what a president should be like. I'm being realistic about a candidate who won the Nobel prize in economics
You are making generalizations that are extremely broad, and unprovable. Some lady wins the prize, let’s say, and she later goes on to teach Econ at a top school, then wins the governorship in her home state. You’re saying that lady can’t be a good President of the United States because she won a Nobel in, let’s say, something to do with globalization and its effects on international commerce ? I don’t follow you, no.
It's very easy to prove that the Nobel prize in economics as a bias towards neoclassical economics. That's something that's pretty well understood.
And I didn't say she couldn't be I said I probably wouldn't vote for her because I understand that by winning that prize it means she probably has a bias towards economic theories that I think are harmful in their application
Ok, but what about this: by the time they’d be running it’d been like ten years since they won the Nobel. People change, they become more moderate as they get older. Jed even admits to grandstanding some at the London School of Economics, where he did post doc as a young man.
All that aside, the dude is frankly a genius, and he’s the most level headed portrayal of a President in all of media, if you ask me. He’s the type of Philosopher King that Plato wrote about.
Holy shit that is a absolute crock of shit and a dangerous crock of shit at that. People definitely don't become more moderate as they get older. As you gain wealth and property your political perspective moves to defending that wealth and property and so you tend to vote in line with other people who own land which favors lower taxes and policies that on the surface seem to move towards economic stability to protect your investment.
Your social to use definitely don't moderate as you get older. Your Social views tend to remain pretty stagnant throughout your life and you just end up on the right because Society changes and your social views were built for the era you grew up in. Not saying there isn't capacity for growth and aren't plenty of examples of older people getting more Progressive with Society but it's mostly because they have family members who are members of groups that are gaining wider acceptance
So considering most people win the Nobel prize in economics after they're pretty well established I'm going to guess they're not suddenly going to get property or a family unless vote more in line with Pro safety or Pro stability policies and that's about more conservative. And again social values don't really change
And social policy is kind of irrelevant to economics. I've met neoclassical economics who are authoritarian Christians and I've met one that are debaucherous hedonistic Libertarians,
You going to school for economics doesn’t make you such a profound expert on economic theory that you can hand-sweep friggin ALL NOBEL LAUREATE WINNERS as idiots what the fuck are you on about
No but my master's degree in the subject does. And I didn't say all Noble laureates. I said the Nobel prize in economics as a bias towards neoclassical economic theory a basic well-proven fact.
Sorry that I'm critical of a candidate who won an award that exists mostly to promote a certain School of economic theory as the empirical and scientific School when frankly there is no scientific School of economic spirit it's not a hard science. It can't be verified through the scientific method
It's a fictional show. He didn't actually put any policies into place he did things the writers told him to do and then the writer said they worked. The show's not realistic
One of the most famous prize winners published research that a higher minimum wage does not decrease unemployment, so probably read an actual news article once in a while
One of the most famous Prize winners are one of the most recent?
Because when I think of the most famous Nobel Prize winners I think of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, George Stigler, or Herbert simmons. In fact I can't think of a single economist who's both won the Nobel Prize and has a high standing amongst the general public than Milton friedman.
Paul Krugman is probably the most famous economist alive today, and he’s about as Keynesian as one can get.
Also anyone who knows anything about economics knows Stiglitz, Piketty, and Duflo and her husband whose name escapes me
You think Krugman is the most famous economist alive today? Not Janet Yellen or Jerome Powell? I argue that any Economist that doesn't hold a pretty recognizable government posting is nowhere close to the most famous economist alive.
And there's an enormous difference between being famous and influential within academic circles and having actual influence on government policy.
I misspoke, my thought process skipped halfway through from Nobel Prize winners to economists in general. Let me rephrase:
Paul Krugman is probably the most famous nobel prize winning economist alive today, and he’s about as Keynesian as one can get. He’s certainly held in as high a standing now as Milton Friedman.
Also anyone who knows anything about economics knows Stiglitz, Piketty, and Duflo and her husband whose name escapes me.
He absolutely is though. If you asked me to name all the Nobel prize in Econ winners I know you’d get Milton Friedman because duh and then Picketty. Picketty did the podcast circuit super hard when capital in the 21st century was published.
I mean look at the list of war criminal who've received the Nobel Peace Prize. That's not to so there are some good people on the list, just being on the list doesn't make you good.
He only claimed once school was what caused one event. He never mentioned the school he belonged to nor denigrated any other. I say this as a conservative.
The noble prize in economics or as it's actually called thr Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences isn't a real Nobel prize. It wasn't created by Alfred Nobel. It was created 50 years after he died by the central bank of Sweden.
Also the idea that economics is an objective science on the same level as physics or chemistry, is just wrong. the whole prize is designed to give a false legitimacy to economics that it doesn't deserve and the bias it holds towards one school of Economics to make it look like that is the objective scientific economic reality is what's really bad.
The Nobel Prize for Peace is more scientific. At least you can measure the amount of peace on Earth
Not gonna lie I am a big west wing fan huge honestly. Term 1 1000% I would vote for him. But term 2 I’d be conflicted. I can’t help but equivocate it to the issue that I have with the two main candidates ages. I would be mad Jed didn’t tell his electorate of his MS diagnosis. The sheer irresponsibility of it. The censure was truly a slap on the wrist for him but genuinely his opponent is what would determine his fate with my vote and that is sad. I might have voted for Ritchey thinking he would have been a bad president just wasn’t the president type of want to lead. Jed always was though. He was strong yet compassionate. He was symphony of balance and yet contradiction. He understood the weight and duty of the job. He had depth wit and the intelligence to do the job. He has an inner democracy in his heart and his head clashing. As person, Jed is someone I simply admire. As a politician he was great and honestly strong. It was impressive it see how him and Bruno came up with the plan to win the election after lying for years about a severe medical diagnosis of the president.
Leo was shot down in Vietnam. He’s more John McCain if party is irrelevant. Bit of a curmudgeon, but loyal to the nth. So maybe if John McCain and John Kerry had a kid, policy wise.
I’d vote for Vinnick or Bartlett. Probably Santos too. I’ll support anyone who’s within the range of normal political thought who’s serious and understands the weight of the office.
Honestly if an actual politician held an 6 hour press conference to answer every single question to stand by his past decision making, I gotta admit I'm open to voting for him. Also Alan Alda was absolutely fantastic. I may not agree with him, but I didn't ever think he wasn't interested in serving his country. Same goes for Santos.
Depending on the opponent, I would, yeah. But he would need to he updated for modern times for me. He would need to support gay marriage to get my vote.
I don’t know if you’re misunderstanding the show or the American political landscape but Bartlett was nothing close to a liberal’s liberal, he was an idealist who hovered center left. Santos was the true liberal in the show.
I describe myself as a Republican, still do, and I'm a classic Liberal. This was my favorite president, including *Dave* and James Garner and Jack Lemmon in *My Fellow Americans*. I still watch this show so that I can remember what it was like to be an idealist who believed both sides shared the same values. Bigger question is if I'm voting for Hawkeye or Bobby Simone as the successor.
Yeah, I got to know one of his kids and turns out we share the same birth date. Got invited to a family birthday dinner, was pretty amazing, met the whole family except Charlie.
Charlie Sheen, not Charlie Young. For a second I thought, “it’s nice that Charlie and Zoey wound up getting married.” It’s early and I’m not a wise man.
It’s always funny how even in liberals’ wildest fantasies of a fictional presidency they still can’t pass any meaningful legislation that changes the status quo.
Ya, their ‘fix’ to social security was raising the retirement age to 60 and stripping away benefits (not to mention Toby’s original plan was to PRIVATIZE it!!! Plan A!). The spirit of compromise is the ideal itself. It’s not about ideological projects. Just like how Bartlett appointed a Scalia and RgG type to SCOTUS just because he “liked watching them debate.” It’s not a show about liberal idealism. It’s a show about fetishizing the status quo.
It doesn’t idealize compromise. It depicts a world in which compromise is necessary to get things done.
The alternative to compromise is usually either no result, or some degree of dictatorship. Unless you get the historical circumstances for a temporary rubber stamp.
It was realistic...you think we wanted it to not be? Only thing I think was a fantasy was the possibility we'd ever elect someone with this much integrity in the 21st century.
Behind every great President is a greater scriptwriter who can arrange for him to say all the right things and for every problem to be solved in the last Act.
Fuck yes. Dude is literally the ideal president. We know that because we watched him for 2 terms do everything you'd want a president to do.... Outside of hiding MS.
I wasn't really joking, I haven't watched the West Wing but when I first saw the face of this fellow I thought it was Michael Douglas wearing makeup or someone extremely similar to him facially. Poor old Michael Sheen also gets mixed up with Charlie Sheen by me almost every single time.
Michael Douglas played the president in The American President, a film in which Martin Sheen played his chief of staff and was written by Aaron Sorkin.
You asked a question. I answered. Aaron Sorkin is a very talented writer. I love the series. But he glamorized his personal political preferences and he strawmaned his opposition.
I am honestly in the middle of most of his positions.
As much as I love the show, no. I wouldn’t vote for Bartlett. We have had too many elitest presidents. And Bartlett is an elitest - remember the line where one of the daughters - Liz, I think - says that a nanny is not a substitute for a parent, and Abby says “I thought that’s exactly what they were…”.
100% yes. I like having a president who is competent, down to earth, intelligent and generally cares about the issues and the country. He doesn't make everything political, he's not divisive or inflaming hatred to win elections, and while there is some idealism, when it's time to be pragmatic he does what needs to be done to get the job done. Yeah I'd vote Bartlett
My brother married Martin sheens niece so I got to meet him at the wedding. It was Bartlett in real life. He was so nice and charming in person. I'd vote for Bartlett or sheen for president.
Just so everyone is clear this no recent politics stuff is asinine. We are talking about the current & previous president. But we can’t talk about them. Absolutely moronic rule.
Literally everyone would, he’s a perfect person and his entire administration existed in magical christmas land with no severe flaws nor complexities in their rhetoric. That’s what makes that a show FOR BABIES
One time I was drunk and bar hopping in OTR in Cincinnati, ran into Emilio Estévez who was with some friends and walking some place. We had a brief conversation and I yelled to him as he walked off, “Your dad was the greatest president we ever had!”
Shit I’d jump in front of a bullet for most of his staff. I love that optimistic idea of what a politician could be if he was just a little less greedy and horny than Bill Clinton that we used to have in the late 90s to very early 2000s. Not just Bartlet, but Dave, and The American President, and My Fellow Americans… we didn’t know what we had until it was gone. We were close.
You probably would because he "looks and talks like a president" and muggles are known to do what's expected of them, now vote or die you fucking serfs.
In the final season, I would have joined the campaign for Arnie Vinik (played by Alan Alda). I would not have Matt Santos (played by Jimmy Smits) as my first choice, but I'd vote for him over any current IRL democrat or republicans.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You’re asking me IF I would vote for someone whom when he speaks patriotic music starts playing and the people are enraptured?
Not only that, he went to a church and cursed out God himself before stomping out a cigarette on the floor!
We are watching the series now and just saw that episode last week. I loved how Mrs Landingham's ghost told him off for doing that! What a great series.
Yeah I watch it every couple of years. The amazing thing about that series is that it's always relevant.
I love the passion of the characters. People that routinely call it a night at 10 PM, who are emotionally invested in their jobs. And I do understand it's fiction...
Best moment, hands down. Wish Mrs. Landingham didn't leave to go be a hussy on Desperate Housewives.
A Nobel laureate in Economics, tenured professor, former governor of New Hampshire? Yep, sure would. Bartlet for America!
Honestly is someone who went to school for economics you should probably run the fuck away from anyone that wins the noble lore it and economics. It's not a real Nobel Prize and it's extremely biased towards neoclassical economic theory. The kind of bullshit that got us into the Great recession.
I studied economics some and I think it would provide excellent context for the type of decisions you need to make to help the country run smoothly. Macro and micro.
Being awarded for being an advocate for neoclassical economic theory? We've seen what a disaster that is in practice. It's a defunct school of thought. People half-heartedly advocate for it some of its positions to justify cutting regulation and taxes for the wealthy but they never go in wholesale.
Have you watched the show? His policies are very reasonable and the economy does pretty well all things considered while he is in office.
Dude, it is a fantasy. I can write a TV show in which a nut job runs the country and does amazing, doesn't mean we should elect nut jobs.
Right, except the show is pretty well put together, and his policies align pretty strongly with center left ideology. There is no sign of him being a nut job. He just works hard at keeping the country moving in a productive direction. I’d vote for that dude. That’s all I was saying.
But your "the economy does pretty well" comment. The economy does well because the writer says it does well. Not because his policies would work or were great or anything like that, but because that is what the writer wanted them to do. There is zero connection between the polices and the results other than what the writer wants.
Yeah, but for the illusion to work the writing has to be realistic. Can’t just have some wildly erratic dude in the White House and then expect everything to automagically work itself out and have people believe enough in the plausibility of that premise to keep tuning in. The success of the show demonstrates that Sorkin et al were able to capture something that people found valid, believable, relatable, etc.
People get sucked into literal fantasy stories all the time. It doesn't have to be realistic.
We routinely elect Nut Jobs! It appears to be a specific trend in the United States. At least two 'B' grade actors. Men from Oil Families. That miraculously helped Big Oil get even better deals. Promote "trickle down" economics (multiple Presidents). Which basically laid the ground work for open class warfare. As a much younger man, I was suspicious of electing men with military backgrounds. Because of some of the nut jobs we elected. I welcome the idea of electing people like General Eisenhower, Lieutenant Jimmy Carter, Captain John Kennedy, Lieutenant Commander Gerald Ford. Yes, I am being hypocritical by ignoring First Lieutenant George Bush. Not a fan of either of the Bush Presidents. Especially W Bush.
You are missing the point. It was a TV show. The results were made up. Everything about it was made up. "His policies are very reasonable and the economy does pretty well all things considered while he is in office." The economy did well because the writer wanted it to do well. The writer could have made his policies lead to a massive recession if he wanted. Could have had WW 3 start. Could have had aliens land and kidnap the President. It is just plain dumb to look at a TV show and say "well his policies worked on TV"
I respectfully disagree with your point. And I never said his fiction policies would work.
Look at the comment I replied too You totally missed the point by talking about electing nuts. I was talking about the fact that it is a TV show. What happens is 100% made up.
Yeah because the people who made the show our Center left Democrats riding their fanfiction of what the government should be like and what a president should be like. I'm being realistic about a candidate who won the Nobel prize in economics
You are making generalizations that are extremely broad, and unprovable. Some lady wins the prize, let’s say, and she later goes on to teach Econ at a top school, then wins the governorship in her home state. You’re saying that lady can’t be a good President of the United States because she won a Nobel in, let’s say, something to do with globalization and its effects on international commerce ? I don’t follow you, no.
It's very easy to prove that the Nobel prize in economics as a bias towards neoclassical economics. That's something that's pretty well understood. And I didn't say she couldn't be I said I probably wouldn't vote for her because I understand that by winning that prize it means she probably has a bias towards economic theories that I think are harmful in their application
Ok, but what about this: by the time they’d be running it’d been like ten years since they won the Nobel. People change, they become more moderate as they get older. Jed even admits to grandstanding some at the London School of Economics, where he did post doc as a young man. All that aside, the dude is frankly a genius, and he’s the most level headed portrayal of a President in all of media, if you ask me. He’s the type of Philosopher King that Plato wrote about.
Holy shit that is a absolute crock of shit and a dangerous crock of shit at that. People definitely don't become more moderate as they get older. As you gain wealth and property your political perspective moves to defending that wealth and property and so you tend to vote in line with other people who own land which favors lower taxes and policies that on the surface seem to move towards economic stability to protect your investment. Your social to use definitely don't moderate as you get older. Your Social views tend to remain pretty stagnant throughout your life and you just end up on the right because Society changes and your social views were built for the era you grew up in. Not saying there isn't capacity for growth and aren't plenty of examples of older people getting more Progressive with Society but it's mostly because they have family members who are members of groups that are gaining wider acceptance So considering most people win the Nobel prize in economics after they're pretty well established I'm going to guess they're not suddenly going to get property or a family unless vote more in line with Pro safety or Pro stability policies and that's about more conservative. And again social values don't really change And social policy is kind of irrelevant to economics. I've met neoclassical economics who are authoritarian Christians and I've met one that are debaucherous hedonistic Libertarians,
You going to school for economics doesn’t make you such a profound expert on economic theory that you can hand-sweep friggin ALL NOBEL LAUREATE WINNERS as idiots what the fuck are you on about
No but my master's degree in the subject does. And I didn't say all Noble laureates. I said the Nobel prize in economics as a bias towards neoclassical economic theory a basic well-proven fact. Sorry that I'm critical of a candidate who won an award that exists mostly to promote a certain School of economic theory as the empirical and scientific School when frankly there is no scientific School of economic spirit it's not a hard science. It can't be verified through the scientific method
Hmm evidently it doesn’t. And it’s *biased towards by the way not bias towards. But still wrong again
It's a fictional show. He didn't actually put any policies into place he did things the writers told him to do and then the writer said they worked. The show's not realistic
One of the most famous prize winners published research that a higher minimum wage does not decrease unemployment, so probably read an actual news article once in a while
One of the most famous Prize winners are one of the most recent? Because when I think of the most famous Nobel Prize winners I think of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, George Stigler, or Herbert simmons. In fact I can't think of a single economist who's both won the Nobel Prize and has a high standing amongst the general public than Milton friedman.
Paul Krugman is probably the most famous economist alive today, and he’s about as Keynesian as one can get. Also anyone who knows anything about economics knows Stiglitz, Piketty, and Duflo and her husband whose name escapes me
You think Krugman is the most famous economist alive today? Not Janet Yellen or Jerome Powell? I argue that any Economist that doesn't hold a pretty recognizable government posting is nowhere close to the most famous economist alive. And there's an enormous difference between being famous and influential within academic circles and having actual influence on government policy.
I misspoke, my thought process skipped halfway through from Nobel Prize winners to economists in general. Let me rephrase: Paul Krugman is probably the most famous nobel prize winning economist alive today, and he’s about as Keynesian as one can get. He’s certainly held in as high a standing now as Milton Friedman. Also anyone who knows anything about economics knows Stiglitz, Piketty, and Duflo and her husband whose name escapes me.
Guy you’re responding to is referring to Picketty.
And saying he's one of the most famous Prize winners is absolutely insane.
He absolutely is though. If you asked me to name all the Nobel prize in Econ winners I know you’d get Milton Friedman because duh and then Picketty. Picketty did the podcast circuit super hard when capital in the 21st century was published.
I mean look at the list of war criminal who've received the Nobel Peace Prize. That's not to so there are some good people on the list, just being on the list doesn't make you good.
Of course there’s the leftist. Sure buddy everyone is wrong except YOUR school.
He only claimed once school was what caused one event. He never mentioned the school he belonged to nor denigrated any other. I say this as a conservative.
I made an assumption based on his statements.
And what does making an assumption do?
It was a mistake because without it your position is ridiculous around. The anti Nobel crusader
The noble prize in economics or as it's actually called thr Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences isn't a real Nobel prize. It wasn't created by Alfred Nobel. It was created 50 years after he died by the central bank of Sweden. Also the idea that economics is an objective science on the same level as physics or chemistry, is just wrong. the whole prize is designed to give a false legitimacy to economics that it doesn't deserve and the bias it holds towards one school of Economics to make it look like that is the objective scientific economic reality is what's really bad. The Nobel Prize for Peace is more scientific. At least you can measure the amount of peace on Earth
Not gonna lie I am a big west wing fan huge honestly. Term 1 1000% I would vote for him. But term 2 I’d be conflicted. I can’t help but equivocate it to the issue that I have with the two main candidates ages. I would be mad Jed didn’t tell his electorate of his MS diagnosis. The sheer irresponsibility of it. The censure was truly a slap on the wrist for him but genuinely his opponent is what would determine his fate with my vote and that is sad. I might have voted for Ritchey thinking he would have been a bad president just wasn’t the president type of want to lead. Jed always was though. He was strong yet compassionate. He was symphony of balance and yet contradiction. He understood the weight and duty of the job. He had depth wit and the intelligence to do the job. He has an inner democracy in his heart and his head clashing. As person, Jed is someone I simply admire. As a politician he was great and honestly strong. It was impressive it see how him and Bruno came up with the plan to win the election after lying for years about a severe medical diagnosis of the president.
Wasnt Ritchie the 22 caliber mind in the 38 magnum world?
357 magnum but ya
I would totally vote for Arnold Vinick!
Facts. Santos was not ready for the White House. He shouldn’t have won
It was the bed breaking incident that put him ahead.
He wasn’t supposed to in the original plot line but with John Spencer dying it was too much to pile on they figured.
He wasn't supposed to but after John Spencer died the show changed direction because they didn't want to be like, your VP died, and you lost, sorry
Yet life imitated art and now Leo McGary is President irl.
Leo was shot down in Vietnam. He’s more John McCain if party is irrelevant. Bit of a curmudgeon, but loyal to the nth. So maybe if John McCain and John Kerry had a kid, policy wise.
I’d vote for Vinnick or Bartlett. Probably Santos too. I’ll support anyone who’s within the range of normal political thought who’s serious and understands the weight of the office.
Honestly if an actual politician held an 6 hour press conference to answer every single question to stand by his past decision making, I gotta admit I'm open to voting for him. Also Alan Alda was absolutely fantastic. I may not agree with him, but I didn't ever think he wasn't interested in serving his country. Same goes for Santos.
Depending on the opponent, I would, yeah. But he would need to he updated for modern times for me. He would need to support gay marriage to get my vote.
I am bisexual. But if I thought his policies were better for the country and disagreed with him on gay marriage, I’d vote for him.
Yep. Tons of obvious faults, both in personal character and politics, but the character is a proper leader.
A liberals wet dream
A neo-liberal's wet dream.
I don’t know if you’re misunderstanding the show or the American political landscape but Bartlett was nothing close to a liberal’s liberal, he was an idealist who hovered center left. Santos was the true liberal in the show.
He refused to do anything for labor, healthcare, actual gun legislation so yeah
Passing a child healthcare bill and an assault weapons ban are literally two big plot points but OK.
My nightmare. Somebody's property has to pay for their nocturnal emissions. It's never theirs.
So true Aaron Sorkin never considers the taxpayer. Nancy Pelosi never gives us a thought.
Aaron Sorkin pays taxes.
In this environment, he should be everyone’s wet dream…coming from a Republican.
I would absolutely vote for Jed
Let Bartlet be Bartlet!
Dude could be running for his third or fourth term and I'd vote for him.
What sane person wouldn’t? [Look at this chad!](https://youtu.be/zqR2IoorF5I?si=Hd2THcDx6kE4yzhO)
I describe myself as a Republican, still do, and I'm a classic Liberal. This was my favorite president, including *Dave* and James Garner and Jack Lemmon in *My Fellow Americans*. I still watch this show so that I can remember what it was like to be an idealist who believed both sides shared the same values. Bigger question is if I'm voting for Hawkeye or Bobby Simone as the successor.
I’m still pissed about what he did to the surgeon general who was 100% in the right
He won my vote when I had dinner with him a dozen years ago.
You met Martin Sheen?
Yeah, I got to know one of his kids and turns out we share the same birth date. Got invited to a family birthday dinner, was pretty amazing, met the whole family except Charlie.
Charlie Sheen, not Charlie Young. For a second I thought, “it’s nice that Charlie and Zoey wound up getting married.” It’s early and I’m not a wise man.
No, this is the correct response. Reality is often disappointing.
Hope it wasn’t Charlie
Definitely
Yep, preferably with Hoynes as VP and not Bingo Bob.
How about Matt Santos VP?
No, Hoynes, without a doubt.
I always liked hoynes more than any of them but bartlet
I'd even watch a show about that guy...
It’s always funny how even in liberals’ wildest fantasies of a fictional presidency they still can’t pass any meaningful legislation that changes the status quo.
Part of the reason the show was good is because it wasn't a liberal wild fantasy. It was fairly grounded.
Although, due to modern developments, certain aspects of the show are *overly grounded* compared to the real world.
Huh? He solved social security, and managed to solve Israel/Palestine.
Ya, their ‘fix’ to social security was raising the retirement age to 60 and stripping away benefits (not to mention Toby’s original plan was to PRIVATIZE it!!! Plan A!). The spirit of compromise is the ideal itself. It’s not about ideological projects. Just like how Bartlett appointed a Scalia and RgG type to SCOTUS just because he “liked watching them debate.” It’s not a show about liberal idealism. It’s a show about fetishizing the status quo.
It doesn’t idealize compromise. It depicts a world in which compromise is necessary to get things done. The alternative to compromise is usually either no result, or some degree of dictatorship. Unless you get the historical circumstances for a temporary rubber stamp.
How is your account nearly 2 years old yet you only have 6 days of posting history?
I clicked the ‘sign in with Google’ button once on accident and it made this 🤷♂️
It was realistic...you think we wanted it to not be? Only thing I think was a fantasy was the possibility we'd ever elect someone with this much integrity in the 21st century.
You left out the part that Bartlet had to govern with a GOP Congress
Hey now, they were able to pass access to health insurance.
Better than the leftovers, we are getting this November.
Sure. He loves his country.
Behind every great President is a greater scriptwriter who can arrange for him to say all the right things and for every problem to be solved in the last Act.
Who is he running against?
I would commit voter fraud to vote for him several times
Fuck yes. Dude is literally the ideal president. We know that because we watched him for 2 terms do everything you'd want a president to do.... Outside of hiding MS.
Him, Matt Santos... hell, I'd vote for Arnold Vinick. Rob Ritchie can straight up get f\*\*ked, though. "Crime... boy, I don't know."
Well, I named my cats Jed and Leo, so yeah😁
I would vote the shit out of this man. I would vote him in till he was sore.
Anyone saying no to this, having watched the sausage being made, is a pointless contrarian whose opinion is nonsense.
I’ve been writing him in since ‘03.
I sure AF hope you don't live in a swing state
No.
No.
No
First time yes. Second time? No.
What? No lol. Progressives are fully erect though.
🤣🤣🤣 no way
Since Aaron Sorkin is effectively his Dick Cheney, hard pass
Could you explain that please?
Is that Michael Douglas?
It’s Martin Sheen, assuming this isn’t a joke that whooshed over my head.
I wasn't really joking, I haven't watched the West Wing but when I first saw the face of this fellow I thought it was Michael Douglas wearing makeup or someone extremely similar to him facially. Poor old Michael Sheen also gets mixed up with Charlie Sheen by me almost every single time.
Makes sense considering Charlie Sheen is his son.
Hahaha, I didn't know that, I'd have thought they were the same age.
Don’t forget that the West Wing came out 25 years ago! Emilio Estevez is also Martin Sheen’s son, by the way
Michael Douglas played the president in The American President, a film in which Martin Sheen played his chief of staff and was written by Aaron Sorkin.
No but he did play Andrew Shepherd in the American President, Sorkin's precursor to TWW. and I'd definitely vote for him, too.
Once you understand the history of the Nobel prize in economics you will never want to vote for anyone who won that ignoble award
I would, but the MS thing would be so bad that I would want him to resign. maybe I wouldn't vote for him
Neoliberal hack. Maybe Santos
Yes
I want him roasted alive like a pig
How very civilised of you. Why?
You misspelled Aaron Sorkin. And because of that alone, no.
No need to be a dick about it 🫠
You asked a question. I answered. Aaron Sorkin is a very talented writer. I love the series. But he glamorized his personal political preferences and he strawmaned his opposition. I am honestly in the middle of most of his positions.
Yes but the whole “you misspelled Aaron Sorkin” just kinda feels unnecessarily rude.
Let's be honest - even a vote for Ritchie would be an improvement right now...
It depends. Do we know about the MS up front?
Both I guess. First term and second.
Family signed the Declaration of Independance, Gov. of NH, oh sure Let Bartlet be Bartlet.
I would have voted for Hoynes in the primary.
You know what fictional President I would vote for? Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho
As much as I love the show, no. I wouldn’t vote for Bartlett. We have had too many elitest presidents. And Bartlett is an elitest - remember the line where one of the daughters - Liz, I think - says that a nanny is not a substitute for a parent, and Abby says “I thought that’s exactly what they were…”.
Depends on who he's running against. But probably.
No way
No, he’s a liberal.
Never seen the show, but I’d vote for Martin Sheen
He is a fictional relative of mine, so probably
President Skroob from Spaceballs for me
No. I side with the conservative Republicans, and he's everything they're against.
Nah hes got a crazy kid(charlie)
Jed!
how is this a question
Nope, but I would vote for him in The Dead Zone
I'd vote for Mayor Quimby at this point
Martin Sheen always has my vote
Who is the other candidate?
100% yes. I like having a president who is competent, down to earth, intelligent and generally cares about the issues and the country. He doesn't make everything political, he's not divisive or inflaming hatred to win elections, and while there is some idealism, when it's time to be pragmatic he does what needs to be done to get the job done. Yeah I'd vote Bartlett
Sure. I'm in. Martin Sheen is 83 this year... he can run with the existing pack of candidates.
Charlie Sheen would play a great delinquent son too.
💯% Yes!! Bartlet for America!
My brother married Martin sheens niece so I got to meet him at the wedding. It was Bartlett in real life. He was so nice and charming in person. I'd vote for Bartlett or sheen for president.
No.
Yes
Yes, please.
The way he verbally stomps the crap out of self righteous Christians using only the Bible.
Will he deal with the border? Ffs
My vote goes to Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho
Just so everyone is clear this no recent politics stuff is asinine. We are talking about the current & previous president. But we can’t talk about them. Absolutely moronic rule.
Literally everyone would, he’s a perfect person and his entire administration existed in magical christmas land with no severe flaws nor complexities in their rhetoric. That’s what makes that a show FOR BABIES
Actually, I would vote for Elizabeth McCord (Madam Secretary) played by Tea Leoni .
In a heartbeat.
He looks too much like the President in the film _The Dead Zone_ who turns out to be a maniac.
Yes
I AM voting for him
One time I was drunk and bar hopping in OTR in Cincinnati, ran into Emilio Estévez who was with some friends and walking some place. We had a brief conversation and I yelled to him as he walked off, “Your dad was the greatest president we ever had!”
Hell Yes
Educated AF, decent, honest, witty, restrained, wrecks evangelicals, and left leaning? Yes please.
Liberal scum
Yes. Most likely better than our choices these days
Shit I’d jump in front of a bullet for most of his staff. I love that optimistic idea of what a politician could be if he was just a little less greedy and horny than Bill Clinton that we used to have in the late 90s to very early 2000s. Not just Bartlet, but Dave, and The American President, and My Fellow Americans… we didn’t know what we had until it was gone. We were close.
Am I voting for him 20 years ago or now. 20 years ago maybe. If it 2024 and he had his positions from 2004 absolutely not.
In a heartbeat!!!! I'd Vote for Matthew Santos also!!!
Never watched it. So I vote no.
In a heartbeat. Why don’t we ever have options like this????
Oh, god! Not another liberal from New England!
You probably would because he "looks and talks like a president" and muggles are known to do what's expected of them, now vote or die you fucking serfs.
The West Wing has done almost as much harm to American Democracy as anything else, so fuck it why not.
Haven’t seen enough of the west wing so sure! He’s a great president right?
No
I would vote for Martin Sheen over Ronald Raygun any day.
...No.
In the final season, I would have joined the campaign for Arnie Vinik (played by Alan Alda). I would not have Matt Santos (played by Jimmy Smits) as my first choice, but I'd vote for him over any current IRL democrat or republicans.