Her grace isn't mistaken. It seems to be common knowledge amongst the major corporations as well as within government that Jovavich's place is secure for next year. Why back a losing horse? Or more specifically, why risk supporting someone who goes against the grain?
Gill-Jade seems to have been neutral to ineffective during her tenure. Jovavich seems to have more grit behind her, which makes one wonder how aggressively she'll push her backers' agendas. Lynch, on the other hand, is more focused on charity and outreach. He's been helping the impoverished for decades, judging by the records I'd seen. For a government supported by corporations and all involved benefitting by the classism in place, that makes him a bit of a wildcard, don't you think?
no subject
Gill-Jade seems to have been neutral to ineffective during her tenure. Jovavich seems to have more grit behind her, which makes one wonder how aggressively she'll push her backers' agendas. Lynch, on the other hand, is more focused on charity and outreach. He's been helping the impoverished for decades, judging by the records I'd seen. For a government supported by corporations and all involved benefitting by the classism in place, that makes him a bit of a wildcard, don't you think?