Linda throws away $50million on the Ct Senate Race *2012 Edition* Result inside!

MitchKoobski

Linda teasing a face turn...
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/linda-mcmahon-vote-for-obama.php?ref=fpb

Connecticut Republican Senate nominee Linda McMahon has been telling voters lately that it’s okay to vote for President Obama as well as her. Now she’s taking it a step further — and getting about as far away from her own party’s nominee for president as she can — and actually urging voters to cast their ballots for Obama as well as in the final days of the campaign.

montyrebel

please god, allah, whoever that this is the end of the PG era, finally

Horsebox9000

How anyone ever thought The Rock would appear on that show is beyond me. Chap is a multi millionaire. I doubt he needs tips on how to eat spiders from Johnny Rotten.

GTR63

I wouldn't mind seeing New Jack in it.

Furious-Red

GTR63 wrote: »

I wouldn't mind seeing New Jack in it.

And leave him in there

rovert

That isn't a face turn by Linda she needs to convert democrats into voters for her if she has the remotest prayer.

Loughc

rovert wrote: »

That isn't a face turn by Linda she needs to convert democrats into voters for her if she has the remotest prayer.

Yea she has No Chance, No chance in hell.

Mr.Saturn

Given how cynical she's proved herself already, I can fully envision her running as a Democrat in 2016.

GTR63

lockie1983 wrote: »

Yea she has No Chance, No chance in hell.

Unlike when Vince used to say it she really does have no chance despite spending another what $50m on this campain. More of a chance of me marrying Eva Mendes than there is of her getting in.

rovert

GTR63 wrote: »

Unlike when Vince used to say it she really does have no chance despite spending another what $50m on this campain. More of a chance of me marrying Eva Mendes than there is of her getting in.

50m last election and 47m this go around. Most other women are happy with a new kitchen.

hufpc8w3adnk65

Is Linda defo not gettin elected so?

DEFTLEFTHAND

That's what it looks like. You'd imagine this will be it for her political aspirations. She'll be 68 in 2016 and given the huge campaign costs I don't think she'd get many backers for a third attempt.

hufpc8w3adnk65

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

That's what it looks like. You'd imagine this will be it for her political aspirations. She'll be 68 in 2016 and given the huge campaign costs I don't think she'd get many backers for a third attempt.

Please god let this be it and let vince get back too "edgy" tv story lines again!

Tinie

Does anyone know if Vince would actually consider changing back to more adult oriented wrestling if Linda does indeed give up on getting a seat? Not a attitude era rehash, but just a more modern, non PG wrestling show. Like I know wrestling wont ever reach the heights it had back in the late 90s, early 00s, but are WWE making anywhere near as much profit as they were back then, or even as much profit, or more than say back in 2005 when it wasnt PG tv?

As if they're making more profit now than 5 years ago, because of the toy deals, childresn shows etc, then I doubt WWE will become more "edgy" again.

spiritcrusher

Congress elections are every two years, not four, so you never know what the crazy lady might do...

Lord TSC

Tinie wrote: »

Does anyone know if Vince would actually consider changing back to more adult oriented wrestling if Linda does indeed give up on getting a seat? Not a attitude era rehash, but just a more modern, non PG wrestling show. Like I know wrestling wont ever reach the heights it had back in the late 90s, early 00s, but are WWE making anywhere near as much profit as they were back then, or even as much profit, or more than say back in 2005 when it wasnt PG tv?

As if they're making more profit now than 5 years ago, because of the toy deals, childresn shows etc, then I doubt WWE will become more "edgy" again.

I know this debate has been had before, but the fact wrestling isn't "adult oriented" isn't the problem with WWE at the moment. It's possibly to be PG and still be edgy. The problem lies with the fact the writers aren't producing good material, and that wouldn't change if it was PG or Rated R.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I know this debate has been had before, but the fact wrestling isn't "adult oriented" isn't the problem with WWE at the moment. It's possibly to be PG and still be edgy. The problem lies with the fact the writers aren't producing good material, and that wouldn't change if it was PG or Rated R.

That's a good point, the PG rating still offers a good scope for what you can do. If I remember correctly WCW were PG during their time on top in the 90s.

GTR63

spiritcrusher wrote: »

Congress elections are every two years, not four, so you never know what the crazy lady might do...

Surely after spending 100m, failing twice and wwe walking on eggshells she will take the Hint.
And I want her to give it up cause after playing WWE13 I want them to make a proper attitude era dvd that seems to have got nixed.

Penn

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I know this debate has been had before, but the fact wrestling isn't "adult oriented" isn't the problem with WWE at the moment. It's possibly to be PG and still be edgy. The problem lies with the fact the writers aren't producing good material, and that wouldn't change if it was PG or Rated R.

In fairness though, how restricted are they in what they can and can't do because of PG?

I don't think anything will change if Linda got elected or not. Look at the amount of money WWE are making off crap like the Brawlin' Buddies or whatever. All the toys and stuff are probably a huge earner for them. Keeping it PG is probably more commercial and profitable.

jaykhunter

I agree but it must also be said, it's not the writers' fault, it's ultimately Vince, Stephanie and HHH's fault as they are responsible for what airs. I doubt writers keep pushing for Brodus dance segments...

CastorTroy

The thing is that it's closer to U than PG. They censor themselves so often for stuff that can be seen on primetime television.
I think that's what part of the problem is. It sometimes seems like it could do something but then backs away from it because they're not allowed to do it.

jaykhunter

Split into it's own thread.



Yes, she's a republican, and has raised over $150k for fellow Republican Mitt Romney, but she's curiously backing Democrat Obama as well. Maybe she flip-flopped to go with the winning side?

She was also officially warned for "deceitful tactics" after sending out a mailer that intentionally misled recipients into thinking it was sent out by the State of Connecticut.

The silver-lining to this s**tstorm of awful business is that not one cent of WWE's money went to this expensive excursion, it was all from the McMahons' pockets.

Ridley

jaykhunter wrote: »

I agree but it must also be said, it's not the writers' fault, it's ultimately Vince, Stephanie and HHH's fault as they are responsible for what airs. I doubt writers keep pushing for Brodus dance segments...

As an experiment, I'd quite like to see them announce that They're going back to PG-13 but not actually change their approach just to see if anyone starts praising the shows for being edgy again.

rovert

jaykhunter wrote: »

The silver-lining to this s**tstorm of awful business is that not one cent of WWE's money went to this expensive excursion, it was all from the McMahons' pockets.

Tell that to the wrestlers or WWE office staff who prefer those profits being re-distributed. Some said last week $47m was equal to and not larger than the entire WWE payroll.

An interesting dimension to this that the lack of firings the past while as Linda has been running as a jobs creator - one of the reasons why Cameron wasn't fired after her DUI. If Linda loses it will be interesting to see how long they wait until they let a bunch of Wrestlers go. Personally I am iffy on whether there are wrestlers to be let go as a lot of Wrestlers left of their own accord this year especially Divas.

takamichinoku

On the plus side, all this endorsing of Obama is clearly her going all out, Republicans won't endorse her a third time after it, even if she's incredibly cheap for them.

...mind you, isn't conneticut a Democrat stronghold? What exactly was she expecting with her background and all?

I thought I heard someone say she actually put more money in this time than the last time?

Have to wonder what Vince makes of it all, is he just agreeing to it all to shut her up? Can't imagine the two of them spent more than a few days together at best over the last few months with her campaigning and his regular crazy schedule.

Angron

rovert wrote: »

Tell that to the wrestlers or WWE office staff who prefer those profits being re-distributed. Some said last week $47m was equal to and not larger than the entire WWE payroll.

An interesting dimension to this that the lack of firings the past while as Linda has been running as a jobs creator - one of the reasons why Cameron wasn't fired after her DUI. If Linda loses it will be interesting to see how long they wait until they let a bunch of Wrestlers go. Personally I am iffy on whether there are wrestlers to be let go as a lot of Wrestlers left of their own accord this year especially Divas.

http://lolwrestling.com/howlonghasjtgbeenemployed/

Stereomaniac

He's been there longer than a lot of the boys. He should be actually on television each week!

rovert

Is there anything Steph can't do?

DM_7

jaykhunter wrote: »

I agree but it must also be said, it's not the writers' fault, it's ultimately Vince, Stephanie and HHH's fault as they are responsible for what airs. I doubt writers keep pushing for Brodus dance segments...

Its the amount of air time that is the problem. Its not possible to engage an audience for that long (RAW) every week. In a month they have to write more than the whole Nolan Batman movies put together.

so they use filler and they use lazy filler as they know they can't keep peoples attention all that time. So they put no energy into those parts of the show and focus on the key parts they want you to remember.

oh yeah and politics is screwed up if you need all that money to be a representative of the people. How anyone who spends 50 million on an election can claim to represent the people is beyond me.

jaykhunter

Interesting. Do you think RAW would be amazing if it was 90 minutes each week?

It's a vanity project for Linda. I know they're not hurting for cash but the McMahons were BILLIONaires when they put WWF on the stock market, and now they have about $300million. And pissing away $100million on this, it's just a lot of money pissed away.

Dancor

rovert wrote: »

Steph vid

Steph sounds so sexy hablar Espanol!!!

Linda is a gob****e with the backing Obama thing. Republicans will also turn on her.

Stereomaniac

Sure logical thinking is never really part of the McMahon psyche down through the years. However, in most cases it has paid off. In this instance, I don't see her having success.

Penn

Stereomaniac wrote: »

Sure logical thinking is never really part of the McMahon psyche down through the years. However, in most cases it has paid off. In this instance, I don't see her having success.

I think backing Obama would actually damage her chances. Republicans would see her as a sellout, and Democrats would see her as a Republican.

Stereomaniac

That's what I just said, without actually saying it. Thank you for clarifying my statement.

jaykhunter

It's hilariously desperate that she's marking herself as an "independent". Right on Penn, she's by hedging her bets, she's both a turncoat and a hypocrite!! And that she's trying to push herself as simply "Linda" as McMahon is a dirty name. Your boy Meltz was saying her smear campaign ("hey this guy was late on mortgage repayments") really all came back to haunt her and sullied herself. (as the McMahons were late paying taxes). He also said last time Linda spent about $100 per vote and this time it's gonna average out about $95 per vote.

I can't imagine just how much good could've been done with WWE with $100,000,000.

rovert

THAT Sean Mooney

starviewadams

They should've done an ad with Vince as a human pinata,and Linda,Steph,Rey Mysterio,ADR and Sin Cara whacking him with sticks,to appeal to the Latino community.

hufpc8w3adnk65

what way is voten going?

Machismo Fan

AP has called Linda's defeat.

jaykhunter

Confirmed, Linda has lost, again.

The Democrat Chris Murphy defeated Linda McMahon, the former head of World Wrestling Entertainment, for the Senate seat in Connecticut, Associated Press reports. Ms McMahon, a Republican, lost her second Senate bid in three years, having spent almost $100 million of her own money on the two campaigns.

Read the whole article: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/us-election/republicans-falter-in-key-senate-races-20121107-28xky.html#ixzz2BV8kyZ00

Charisteas

jaykhunter wrote: »

Confirmed, Linda has lost, again.

Attitude Era version 2.0 begins next Monday.

rovert

Charisteas

Ms McMahon, 39, blanketed the state with ads, presenting herself as a grandmother

omg, wtf, lol

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/us-election/republicans-falter-in-key-senate-races-20121107-28xky.html#ixzz2BVAiF4F4

jaykhunter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtru4Av26CQ

J. Marston

$100 million spent on it? Crazy.

Penn

Bill Maher
‏@billmaher
Bad night for rich idiots. I just wish Conneticut had more elective offices for Linda McMahon to not win.

GTR63

Looking forward to the no doubt upcoming 'stand up for the wwe' campaign mark II

hufpc8w3adnk65

J. Marston wrote: »

$100 million spent on it? Crazy.

That was over the 2 failed run's....I wonder how many WWE Superstars will be future endevoured after this....


@Charisteas
Quote:Attitude Era version 2.0 begins next Monday.

Id take the edgy era or PG any thing over the rubbish been spweed out now

Lord TSC

gnfnrhead

She'll be back in two years, probably as an independent. She wont just call it a day, if anything, she will step it up.

hufpc8w3adnk65

The second pic of Vince looks like hes gearing up for one of these