He could have won that jury by not being an ass hat.
Personally, I don't mind people being arrogant or whatever if they can actually back it up with good strategy. Within the context of Survivor, I think that's okay. So, someone like a Russell Hantz or a Jonny Fairplay gets a thumbs up from me, whereas someone like...Judd Sergeant just comes across as a jackass. It may seem like a strange distinction, but it works for me. I also feel like a lot of the moments that people point to and say "this is Russell being a terrible person" shouldn't really be taken so seriously. The dumbass girls alliance? Come on now, it's pretty damn clear that that statement was made with humorous intent. It was funny! In the past few months, I introduced a friend of mine (a girl) to Survivor, and when we got to Samoa she was splitting her sides laughing at that.
And like I said earlier: in my opinion, juries who cannot objectively vote for the best strategic player display a lack of maturity. Winning is what people sign up for Survivor to do. The jury in Samoa awarded the title to someone whose accomplishments, like everyone else's, paled in comparison to what Russell achieved. Just because someone like Russell is better at separating whatever personal feelings he may have from the game decisions he needs to make to advance himself, they're going to punish him? Gimme a break.
--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.