Being a US Senator is really, really hard to do outside the tiny states like Wyoming. Since the partisan balance will be 1-2 votes either way most likely, Linda would have leverage beyond her station. Plus it's that much more of an accomplishment given how blue Connecticut is.

Unlikely. She'll vote straight party line on all the important issues, especially since there is no daylight between her views and the party's view in general. She's not running as a moderate Snowe & Collins style Republican, which is effectively dead. The leverage is with the Dems goes against the party's position.

 

John

Does she really need a full six-year Senate term to do a $500 tax cut, and is that all she wants to accomplish?

This is more about furthering the interests of her family and her company than her fellow citizens. Which is another reason why she won't rock the Republican party boat too much if she got into power.

I understand that, but the McMahons aren't stupid. It's crazy that she really thinks what she is doing is enough to win.

I understand that, but the McMahons aren't stupid. It's crazy that she really thinks what she is doing is enough to win.

They are that crazy.

 

John

Being a US Senator is really, really hard to do outside the tiny states like Wyoming. Since the partisan balance will be 1-2 votes either way most likely, Linda would have leverage beyond her station. Plus it's that much more of an accomplishment given how blue Connecticut is.

Unlikely. She'll vote straight party line on all the important issues, especially since there is no daylight between her views and the party's view in general. She's not running as a moderate Snowe & Collins style Republican, which is effectively dead. The leverage is with the Dems goes against the party's position.

 

John

 

I don't get the sense that the McMahons are rock-ribbed conservatives. I see her in a similar position to Scott Brown.

 

As for whether she can win, well, to say that she doesn't compare favorably as a candidate to Scott Brown would be an understatement...

The most liberal Republican is still well to the right of the most conservative Democrat.

I don't get the sense that the McMahons are rock-ribbed conservatives.

On social issues, no. It's easy to tell that they don't give a shit about Christianity, traditional family values, or any of that kind of stuff. Foreign policy? Who knows, but it wouldn't surprise me if Vince & Co. were all about kicking some ass overseas, just out of pure machismo. I doubt they're pacifists. It's economic policy where they'd line up most readily with modern Republican values. Keep government hands off big business, tax breaks, deregulation, all that kinds of stuff is something that the McMahons would go to bat for.

 

Truthfully, their values generally lie much closer to the Libertarian party than the Republican one. But of course you're not gonna get elected to office running as a third party, so they made the pragmatic choice.

With all the jingoism shoved down our throats through the years, of course they are about kicking ass overseas. And it wouldn't surprise me if Linda is against taxing the rich, but would surprise me even more if she took a stand on it. Makes her an even more easy target for liberals then.

I understand that, but the McMahons aren't stupid. It's crazy that she really thinks what she is doing is enough to win.

They are that crazy.

This a billion times over. I mean this harebrained scheme was likely dreamt up when Vince woke up one day, saw that the economy had tanked and decided to blame Obama for all their troubles. The McMahons aren't stupid, but when it comes to politics they are.

I don't think they're crazy. They just have the same blind spots a lot of rich people do. They expect a great deal of deference from ordinary people and think any problem can be solved by throwing money at it.

i get the sense that linda is just a busybody rich person who feels she is entitled to do something that makes her feel important. why not be a senator! same reason romney wants to be president basically.

I don't get the sense that the McMahons are rock-ribbed conservatives. I see her in a similar position to Scott Brown.

She ran far to the right of Brown in 2010, and is again.

 

John

I don't think they're crazy. They just have the same blind spots a lot of rich people do. They expect a great deal of deference from ordinary people and think any problem can be solved by throwing money at it.

And a lot of it is that they didn't grow up rich, at least Vince didn't, and he still has a chip on his shoulder about it.

McMahon top Senate self-funder, $62.4M poorer

 

$12.40M - McMahon pockets

$523.5K - donations

 

She didn't need to spend as much in the primary this time, just enough to keep any thread within the party for raising up. She'll likely toss a large chunk at the general, along with third party ads dropping in if they feel the seat is more in play than last time. Since they know Linda will drop a ton of her own money, they probably will save their money for other seats where the GOP candidate is less well funded and the race down the stretch is tighter.

 

John

I have a feeling that if she wasn't able to fund her own campaign so much, no way would she have the establishment support she has.

I can't fathom donating to Linda unless you're a personal friend. Then again, 500k for a "legit" Senate candidate is rather pitiful, so I guess not many people think it's a good cause.

A couple things occurred to me the other day. One being that the WWE Network is the prime example of McMahon stubbornness in action. Once it became obvious they weren't going to get the clearances for it to be an expanded-basic type channel, they should have ended it right there since there's practically zero chance of any other concept being anything but a money loser of epic proportions. Yet they won't, since they were stupid enough to run advertising for it on WWE TV before any plans were drawn up. Now Vince seems willing to throw away a shit ton of money just to not have the moment of egg on his face that would come with announcing the plug was pulled on the network.

 

Secondly, Linda's main (only?) campaign tactic has been touting how many jobs she's created via WWE. Everyone goes for the low hanging fruit of OMGWRESTLINGISDIRTY, and no one has mentioned how the majority of the people in WWE are independent contractors with zero benefits who pay expenses out of pocket. Instead of tracking down ex WWE wrestlers who can always be explained away as being bitter, ask Linda why the guys/girls breaking their bodies to enrich her family get no benefits until they become addicts and WWE volunteers to pick up the tab for that.

 

Wrestling gets away with a lot of questionable shit no one else would get away with because of the "it's wrestling" mindset. Someone in the media needs to get over that before WWE ends up kayfabing Linda into Congress.

WWE proves their non-partisan nature by firing AW for pro Linda tweet!

"Jossie wound up in the WWE's doghouse after making an ill-advised Kobe Bryant rape joke during a live broadcast of "Monday Night Raw" on July 30."

 

I feel like 90% of the people who were reading that stopped taking the article seriously after reading the second paragraph.

I like how AW concedes that a joke about Sandusky or the Colorado shooting should be grounds for dismissal. I guess comedy really is tragedy plus time.

A former LPGA golfer is now in the JR/Johnny Ace position?

"Look Prick, Go Away" - Dennis Miller, before he lost his marbles.

A former LPGA golfer is now in the JR/Johnny Ace position?

Triple H is in the JR/Johnny Ace position, she's second in command.

A former LPGA golfer is now in the JR/Johnny Ace position?

Triple H is in the JR/Johnny Ace position, she's second in command.

 

How did Geddes get or even want that job? It just seems so random to me.

Keith wrote it up at the time:

 

http://www.cagesideseats.com/2011/10/1/246...ew-vp-of-talent