How to back a winner
Voters in Missouri have voted on something. It may have been abortion rights, it may have been something else. Dunno, the BBC's reporters seem to have brought unrelated threads together in their story on Kansas' abortion vote, and somewhat confused the message.
Anyhow, there was a contest between a couple of Erics in Missouri. Attorney General Eric Schmitt squared off against former Governor Eric Greitens over something-or-other, comfortably
defeating his opponent.
On the eve of the vote, Mr Trump had announced his endorsement for "Eric", but his spokesman did not clarify which one he meant.
Nomia Iqbal, Max Matza, & Robin Levinson-King,[1] BBC News
The one who won, obviously.[2] The advantage of being ambiguous is that the intention can be fixed later in post, as they say in the film industry.[3] (pipe)
- It probably didn't take all three crack reporters to write this one sentence paragraph, the other two may have been doing something else. But you never know, it's a very finely worded one sentence paragraph, so a lot of work went into getting it right.
- Actually, since Greitens is described as
scandal-plagued
, it's not unlikely that The Donald was rooting for a fellow political pariah. And given that Greitens' improprieties are both sexual and financial in nature, he's clearly the kind of guy that Trump could get behind.[4] - Taken from Winning is for Winners, by DJ Trump & JE Epstein.[4]
- [libel-defence] not really…probably [/libel-defence]