Linda McMahon fails to get elected

jmolloy

Early projections are suggesting Linda has failed in her bid to be elected.

What a shame as I'm sure if she had been elected we would've have got more political humour as per that 'fantastic' skit on Raw

heffomike54

Any chance wwe will be good again after this? I won't hold my breath :rolleyes:

jmolloy

If by good you mean non PG I wouldn't hold my breath. Think that has more to do with the Mattell deal than political aspirations. Vince may come back on TV though which is always entertaining

CMpunked

Somewhere in me i wanted her to win it.
The wwe-pg isnt going away too quick, and her gunning for a seat is kinda what kicked off the whole PG thing.
So i think in a way i would rather her be in the senate and it cost the wwe going pg as opposed to Her losing the election and wwe still being crap.

jmolloy

CMpunked wrote: »

Somewhere in me i wanted her to win it.

I know were your coming from with that but for me I wanted her to win it to see the crap Vince would pull if she got in. The one on Raw was just a teaser of much worse to follow I'm certain of that

CMpunked

I wouldnt have liked it to seep into the wwe world tbh.
Like vince has always approached the whole senate race with a bit of respect, like not going overboard with it etc.
But raw yesterday was just terrible, didnt get what was the idea behind it at all.

ricero

This will surley affect vinces presidential bid :rolleyes:

jmolloy

ricero wrote: »

This will surley affect vinces presidential bid :rolleyes:

jaykhunter

jmolloy wrote: »

Early projections are suggesting Linda has failed in her bid to be elected.

Lol, Vince practically admitted defeat by mildly chastising her use (aka p!ssing away) of $50 million in that skit on RAW! I found it funny :pac:

CMpunked wrote: »

Somewhere in me i wanted her to win it.

That's because you're not american and it'd be hilarious watching them screw themselves over for our amusement!!!

I badly want to see Vince do a live speech on RAW venting his frustrations. So petty and juvenile. It's awesome.

jaykhunter

It's official! Linda has pissed away $50,000,000 for nothing. She lost 52% to 47% [don't ask me where the 1% went!]
http://www.wrestlingnewssource.com/feed_news-17167-Linda_McMahon_Loses_Race_for_Connecticut_Senate_Se.php

"Former WWE CEO Linda McMahon has lost her race for the Connecticut Senate seat after spending $50 million of her on money. McMahon lost to 64-year-old Richard Blumenthal keeping the seat in Democratic control. Blumenthal had 52 percent of the vote to McMahon’s 47 percent.

Blumenthal replaces the seat currently held by Sen. Chris Dodd."

starviewadams

At least there will be no more ''stand up for WWE'' video packages now that the election is over!

Mr.Nice Guy

Delighted. Linda not winning is a great thing for wrestling. The McMahons typify big business, Republican capitalism. Look after the rich and feck everyone else. They have long thwarted efforts for their workers to unionise which would be greatly appreciated (this is a company after all which fired Dawn Marie for being pregnant, as well as other unsavoury dismissals), for a long time they turned away from doing the best they could for the health of their workers and most disgracefully they distanced themselves from those who gave their lives for the industry. In this campaign Linda claimed she never met Lance Cade which greatly upset his father. The company have lashed out at Michael Benoit too, who believes concussions played a big role in his son's death, and they tried to rubbish Chris Nowinski for a period who has been working very hard to bring to light the dangers of these types of brain injuries.

This is a company that has failed its employees time and time again. Yes, some improvements have been made but more needs to be done. I dread to think what the industry would be like if one of their own was in the Senate and able to influence how the industry is perceived by government. Ironically, Linda running has actually brought many of the WWE's dirty little secrets to the public eye and I truly hope the company will now be scrutinised to a greater degree. The 'Stand Up for the WWE' campaign was BS. They should stand up for the people who have uncertain futures in this crazy business and recognise that more of their performers could be alive today if they would just be more open minded.

That company has been hidden away in the shadows for too long, hiding behind their clever spin - 'we're not a sport we're sports entertainment', 'we can regulate ourselves' etc. They hoped to remain in the shadows on their own terms but instead have been pushed into the full glare of the media spotlight. Good. It's about time the murky dealings of the WWE were known.

Headshot

great news

dlofnep

50 mil, down the drain. Delighted.

CMpunked

jaykhunter wrote: »

That's because you're not american and it'd be hilarious watching them screw themselves over for our amusement!!!

You = Nail + head.

jaykhunter

I'm only burning my half

J. Marston

50 million, ha ha. Wonder if all this ''Stand up for WWE, we're being bullied'' shíte will continue?






Jesus, 50 million for nothing. Thats brilliant .

maxxie

To even pretend to that is fairly insulting

GTR63

When she conceeded defeat linda said quote "No matter what, I consider this a victory". $50m spent & Vince ruining his only asset (wwe) it was a fiasco.How many ppv buys & fans have they lost since they went sugar sweet on the PG Stuff.If Vince is changing from the PG Garbage he'll turn Cena heel but he won't apparently its going to be Cena vs Barrett at the Rumble & Cena vs Orton at Mania (what the hell did we do to deserve Orton vs Cena again).

jmolloy

J. Marston wrote: »

50 million, ha ha. Wonder if all this ''Stand up for WWE, we're being bullied'' shíte will continue?

2 new Stand Up Videos today on Facebook looks like it's continuing

Riddle101

jmolloy wrote: »

2 new Stand Up Videos today on Facebook looks like it's continuing

As I expected, it seems they may just turn it into a way of promoting the WWE through now. But at the same time, the WWE still comes under a lot of critism as well so maybe that's why they're keeping them up

Charisteas

I'm sorry she lost.

I have a new found respect for Linda who, despite her age, she still had a tremendous amount of ambition and enthusiasm to go out and chase her dreams.

Shes a billionaire who could have sat by the pool-side in her mansion for the rest of her life soaking up the sun and drinking apple martinis, which is what most of us probably would be doing if we were a billionaire, so fair play to her for showing the drive for wanting to take a new career direction in her life.

She lost, but not by much, and at least she can say she tried without regrets.

Jolt2007

Wasn't interested in this election at all, but hearing that the whole thing might end up biting them in the ass if they do end up getting investigated over calling wrestlers independent contractors instead of employees is rather amusing.

Diabhal Beag

They knew on RAW that she would lose. Doubt if they thought she had a real chance that they would have done the skit.

steelcityblues

The biggest shock of the night, was that Vince and HHH didn't hog the camera during her speech!

davrho

Charisteas wrote: »

I'm sorry she lost.

I have a new found respect for Linda who, despite her age, she still had a tremendous amount of ambition and enthusiasm to go out and chase her dreams.

Shes a billionaire who could have sat by the pool-side in her mansion for the rest of her life soaking up the sun and drinking apple martinis, which is what most of us probably would be doing if we were a billionaire, so fair play to her for showing the drive for wanting to take a new career direction in her life.

She lost, but not by much, and at least she can say she tried without regrets.

Thats no use to the begrudgers though.

Its only 50 million. With the dividends she makes through her shares she will have the money back by next summer.

dlofnep

Charisteas wrote: »

I'm sorry she lost.

I have a new found respect for Linda who, despite her age, she still had a tremendous amount of ambition and enthusiasm to go out and chase her dreams.

Shes a billionaire who could have sat by the pool-side in her mansion for the rest of her life soaking up the sun and drinking apple martinis, which is what most of us probably would be doing if we were a billionaire, so fair play to her for showing the drive for wanting to take a new career direction in her life.

She lost, but not by much, and at least she can say she tried without regrets.

She is the epitome of everything that's wrong with American politics. The best politicians rarely make it - It's usually those who can afford to enter politics who makes it. That's why America is such a captialist-driven country as you can only make it if you have millions behind you. There's hardly anyone there to speak on behalf of the working class.

steelcityblues

dlofnep wrote: »

She is the epitome of everything that's wrong with American politics. The best politicians rarely make it - It's usually those who can afford to enter politics who makes it. That's why America is such a captialist-driven country as you can only make it if you have millions behind you. There's hardly anyone there to speak on behalf of the working class.[/QUOTE]

Agree! I'd say Dennis Kucinich (in Ohio), and Ron Paul (in Texas), and after that becomes harder to think of anyone else!

The McMahons are about the McMahons first and foremost. Any longtime wrestling fan who hasn't recognised this by now has to be a bit brainwashed!

dlofnep

steelcityblues wrote: »

Agree! I'd say Dennis Kucinich (in Ohio), and Ron Paul (in Texas), and after that becomes harder to think of anyone else!

The McMahons are about the McMahons first and foremost. Any longtime wrestling fan who hasn't recognised this by now has to be a bit brainwashed!

You're joking? Ron Paul is a staunch libertarian.

steelcityblues

dlofnep wrote: »

You're joking? Ron Paul is a staunch libertarian.

Voted against several wars because they were anti-constitutional and opposes predatory companies being saved by the bailout. Also, believes the ordinary American should keep his/her gun, as long as registered.

That is definitely pro-working class compared to almost everyone else in Washington!

Kucinich is probably my favourite Democrat too!

dlofnep

steelcityblues wrote: »

Voted against several wars because they were anti-constitutional and opposes predatory companies being saved by the bailout. Also, believes the ordinary American should keep his/her gun, as long as registered.

That is definitely pro-working class compared to almost everyone else in Washington!

Kucinich is probably my favourite Democrat too!

He is not pro-working class. He is a Libertarian. He favours the individual over society. His vote on the war in Iraq is irrelevant with regards to his economic & social outlook.

In a Libertarian utopia, the working class would not be protected. I think you need to read up more about Ron Paul. He is championed on the internet alot - but his policies (beyond his views on Iraq) are not compatible with someone who would favour the working class.

steelcityblues

dlofnep wrote: »

He is not pro-working class. He is a Libertarian. He favours the individual over society. His vote on the war in Iraq is irrelevant with regards to his economic & social outlook.

In a Libertarian utopia, the working class would not be protected. I think you need to read up more about Ron Paul. He is championed on the internet alot - but his policies (beyond his views on Iraq) are not compatible with someone who would favour the working class.

Well, I don't want to derail the thread that is meant to be about Linda McMahon!
I guess I like candidates who don't change seasons, and at least Paul and Kucinich have 'stuck to their guns' (pun half-intended), compared to so many other charlatans!

Riddle101

Just on the note of Ron Paul I believe Kane is a Libertarian, he proberly supports him as well

geeky

steelcityblues wrote: »

Agree! I'd say Dennis Kucinich (in Ohio)

Ironically enough Kucinich is (AFAIK) the member of Congress with the lowest net worth.*

*That's in wealth, not his contribution to debate!