Cena/Punk winning at Mania

Hey Scott, is there any reason why Cena/Punk shouldn't both win at Wrestlemania? I know HHH/Taker last year was dubbed "End of an Era," but shouldn't that be the case this year, with part-time Rock and part-time Taker putting over the two top guys on the current roster? Cena is more obvious since they can't really have him get jabused by Rocky for the third year in a row, but unless they want Cena to be the one to do it next year at 30, having Punk end the streak seems like the best way to truly establish him as the "Best in the World" among all the casual viewers who will tune in to Mania. I mean, the WWE has pretty much sucked all it can out of the Attitude era (although apparently Rock/Brock is likely for next year) unless Austin for some reason returns for the obvious feuds against Punk & Cena, so it seems like the best idea for them would be to have two of the bigger stars from that period put over their top two guys now/the next few years.


Thanks, and I've enjoyed your writing since '98 … even during periods when I don't watch the show weekly, I always am able to keep up with the current product through you/BOD commenters.

Holy cow, if they end the streak after this shitty buildup with a bored Punk and Undertaker sleepwalking through a storyline from 1995, they deserve whatever garbage would be rained down upon the ring by the NY crowd.  Honestly with Punk so obviously not feeling this one and just there for the paycheque, I'd fine with Taker doing a one minute "You mocked my dead manager and now prepare to die" one minute tombstone squash.  I'm not invested in the storyline and neither are the guys, so why prolong it?  

Winning Streaks and CM Punk

Hey Scott,


In response to your Post on Winning streaks, isn't that essentially what the WWE has done right with CM Punk? He has essentially had the WWE Title Since MITB 2011, winning it as a huge babyface. And then when people started to not care about CM Punk as a babyface, they turned him heel to milk another 6 months out of his title reign, leading us to the current storyline we have now.

Also, do you think it hurts Punk and the WWE in any way with the worst kept secret in wrestling, that he will drop the title to The Rock at the Rumble? It kind of Makes the Ryback "chase" moot since we all know he has no chance in hell of winning the Strap anytime soon.

In fact, I love that they're keeping track of the length of the title reign, because that's a REAL THING that people can get invested in.  Just like Undertaker's streak, it's not something that's part of the fake storyline world of WWE.  Punk really has held that belt for over a year now and that gives his title matches real stakes.
In fact, if they're looking for a hook for Wrestlemania, I'd like to steal an idea from my compadre Justin Shapiro and suggest that they ditch the Rock title change altogether and run with Punks' 500 day title reign v. Undertaker's 20-0 streak.  Because then fantasy booking geeks would run WILD trying to figure out how they book themselves out of that corner.  And why not give Rock the World title instead of the WWE title and let him face Cena for THAT instead?  And then what if Ziggler cashed in on the winner?  How's THAT for a rub?  

Winning Streaks

Hey Scott,

 
I was recently watching the Fall of WCW DVD and the Goldberg segment made me think of something.
 
Is there a good way to end a face's undefeated streak?
 
Goldberg's ended with interference, Rybacks will probably end with interference. I can't remember any other major ones, but it seems like the face always needs to lose in a screw-job manner.
 
On the heel side, the face that defeats him would be a conquoring hero in the fans eyes (if done right), but don't think a heel ending a faces win streak can really do much for the heel.
 
Thoughts?
 
-RegalStretch

I don't think the issue with the Goldberg streak was HOW it ended, but rather that it ended way too soon.  There was still tons of programs he could have done, he was still drawing money on top, and Nash didn't need or want the belt.  
I think TNA kind of had the right idea with Crimson's streak in that they had him go on for so long as a babyface until people got sick of him, turned him heel and milked it for a while that way, and then had James Storm end it to get whatever rub they could out of it.  The major problem was that Crimson is fucking awful and it was booked atrociously.  Regardless of TNA's errors, I think that's how Goldberg's streak should have gone down:  Ride that horse until it's dead, then turn the corpse heel and send it to the glue factory.  Or some other metaphor that makes more sense.  And if people DIDN'T get sick of the babyface winning streak, then all the better, because he would still be drawing money!  

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.