Fwd: Piper bashes Linda


Wonder if Piper will go the 2003 route and be brought back just to have embarrassingly bad matches, and be asked to take a stinkface from Rikishi just for talking about Owen's death?

Piper's had a fairly steady gig on Vintage Collection recently, too, so it's especially surprising that he'd suddenly be biting the hand that feeds.  
In related news, the McMahon's personal worth has now dropped to $230 million after the election shenanigans, according to the latest WON.  So I'm thinking we can file this one under "failure".  

Fwd: Blame it on Linda

Hi Scott,

It's silly to suggest the current state of the WWE (PG Era and general safe family-friendly content) is all due to Linda's political campaign. Isn't it? I mean, say Linda's political pipe dream was never an issue, do you think we'd be seeing a substantially edgier WWE product?

Nope, I don't think so.  The PG product is basically 100% a product of the toy sponsorships and trying to get better TV rights fees.  Plus there's literally nothing outside of blood and swearing that they can't do with a PG rating that they could do a TV14 rating.  The whole argument is kind of silly, because an "edgier" product isn't the main problem, there's literally a hundred other issues troubling them before that.  

The nail in the coffin for the Linda McMahon Campaign

No matter how hard they try to distance themselves from the Pro Wrestling stigma, they can’t and probably will never do that. Also, she has reportedly spent about twice as much as any other Senatorial campaign in the country so there might be some unemployed wrestlers in a few weeks.


Linda debate antics


I don't know how much you've been following Linda's Senate run, but the third debate made some national news. Aside from her supporters apparently catcalling Murphy, thus causing delays and leading to the network it was broadcasting on cutting it off during her closing remarks, my favorite part was Murphy's reply to Linda stating to have created hundreds of jobs during her corporate WWE years, responding "they were jobs that came without health care benefits, they were jobs that ended up with dozens of employees dying because of the abuse they took in the ring." 

You'll note that when she wants to make a point about job creation and community involvement, then she was one of the driving forces behind WWE.  But when people bring up Benoit or any of the other deaths, she had nothing to do with the company and in fact has never even heard of this "pro wrestling" thing.  In other words, she's a born politician.  

More On Linda McMahon winning in Connecticut


Rasmussen: McMahon leads in CT, 49/46

posted at 2:01 pm on August 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

There’s no way that Republicans can lose a Senate race in Missouri while winning two in Massachusetts and Connecticut … right?  Would Spock have to wear a goatee in that universe?  Rasmussen’s new poll in the Nutmeg State shows Republican nominee Linda McMahon out to a slight lead over Democratic nominee Chris Murphy in their first look at the general election race for Joe Lieberman’s US Senate seat:
Former wrestling executive Linda McMahon holds a narrow lead over Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy in Rasmussen Reports’ first look at Connecticut’s U.S. Senate race.
A new telephone survey of Likely Voters in Connecticut shows McMahon with 49% of the vote to Murphy’s 46%.  One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
McMahon will surely make Murphy’s support for ObamaCare a big issue in the election, but Rasmussen sees that as more of a push:
Murphy voted in favor of President Obama’s health care reform law and has publicly stated that the law will save money on Medicare. When it comes to the future of Medicare, 44% of Connecticut voters are scared more by the president’s health care law than the reform proposal by Mitt Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan. But just as many (43%) say they are more scared of Ryan’s proposal on Medicare. Connecticut voters are more evenly divided on the question than voters are nationwide.
Eighty percent (80%) of Connecticut voters who fear the health care law’s impact on Medicare more support McMahon. Murphy is backed by 77% of those who fear Ryan’s plan for Medicare more.
This can’t be right, can it?  Rasmussen must be using a Republican-friendly sample, people will assume … but they’d be wrong.  In fact, the sample D/R/I (46/32/22) more closely resembles the 2008 Democratic wave exit polls (43/27/31) than the 2010 exit polls (39/28/33) for Connecticut.  Remember that Republicans lost the Senate seat in 2010 even with the narrower gap in turnout, too.  Murphy has a seven-point lead among women, which Rasmussen oversamples (56/44) in comparison to 2008 (53/47) and 2010 (49/51).  The poll sample, if anything, might be tilted a little in Murphy’s favor.
So how does McMahon get her lead?  She has a 24-point margin among independents, 55/31, for one thing.  McMahon only trails by nine among voters under 40 (40/49), but gets a majority of the other two age demos, including an 18-point lead among seniors.  Both candidates are seen favorably by voters, but McMahon’s 54/43 is slightly better than Murphy’s 50/41.  Among independents, though, McMahon again far outpaces Murphy, with a 57/36 compared to Murphy’s 38/46 — and only 6% of independents view Murphy “very favorably,” as opposed to 23% for McMahon.
The big difference, besides the obvious advantage among independents, is probably the economy.  Democrats will be on defense, especially Murphy, who currently has a seat in the House.  Only 5% of voters rate the economy as “good,” with no one rating it excellent.  A majority of 57% rate it “poor,” and another 37% only rate it “fair.”  That will not help an incumbent, not even in Connecticut.
If McMahon can maintain her advantage over Murphy, the GOP may get an unexpected pickup to make up for the now-expected loss in Missouri.  It might also force Obama to spend some resources to make sure McMahon doesn’t drive enough turnout to have Connecticut voters thinking about change at the very top of the ticket, too.

Linda saga continues

Seems like the Linda posts gained some traction over the weekeend. Here's the next chapter of the saga – apparently the offending editorial never used WWE by name and the WWE's threat of lawsuit could actually end up being a really big campaign No-No since Linda doesn't technically work for them anymore. Really, just good times all around for the WWE in its home state.

This campaign is gonna turn into a giant clusterfuck by WWE until the inevitable Linda defeat.  And you KNOW that WWE is gonna get all side-tracked with "Stand Up For WWE" type bullshit all summer at a time when they really need to be focusing on their product.  If Linda wants to be a politician so bad, why not start small with local government or something along those lines instead of sinking $50 million into an ill-fated Senate run right away?