kjh Posted November 28, 2010 Report Share Posted November 28, 2010 http://www.cagesideseats.com/2010/11/27/18...-of-her-dollars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted December 9, 2010 Report Share Posted December 9, 2010 According to FEC records, the total cost of the failed campaign was $49.58 million! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted December 9, 2010 Report Share Posted December 9, 2010 Ah, so it turns out the "she blew $50 mil" was just a wild exaggeration! She only spent... 99% of $50 mil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 9, 2010 Report Share Posted December 9, 2010 Blow is the right word: Total Receipts: $50,232,567 Candidate Loans: $49,500,000 Candidate Contribution: $604,984 Someone who has more time (since I need to hop in a meeting), could sift through the "LINDA MCMAHON FOR SENATE 2010" committee to see how much she raised from other folks. That won't include outside PACs, the RNC, etc. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted December 9, 2010 Report Share Posted December 9, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MnxK8qR-sA Jesse Ventura on Howard Stern from October. Around 4 minutes in he talks about Linda's campaign, and disputes her claim that WWE's wrestlers are "independent contractors". It's not entirely about her, but worth listening to anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 Time to fire this puppy up again: McMahon 'leaning strongly' toward Conn. Senate bid This has got to freak out Christopher Shays, who was hoping for a fairly easy to the nomination unless he got teapartied. Linda's cash is a problem. On the other hand, Linda's negatives are pretty high... though they weren't massive among GOPers. This also must make Chris Murphy and Susan Bysiewicz giddy. They will likely poll much better against Linda than against Shays. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 How much money do they have to piss away on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 How much money do they have to piss away on this?A lot less would be spent this time because they won't worry about name recognition, pushing her bio, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 I'm not so sure. She spent around $30M to win the nomination, which flooded the state with name recogniton. She spend around another $20M after that, which was just Aug 10 - Nov 2. She blew threw it. Her opponent probably will fund raise if he stay in through the end. Simmons only spent $3,061,644. Then come the general, she's going to be buying media in a feeding frenzy. Blumenthal spent $8.7M, and since he won the nomination in a cake walk, most of that was in the General. Her opponent will likely spend more than that. Also, the DNC and DSCC will support this as one key seat they want to hold, funding it until the polls make clear that McMahon is too far back. Then we'll have Obama and the GOP Nominee buying left and right, along with every Citizens United astroturf entity coming out of the woodworks. It's going to be an expensive campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if she drops another $40M+. Though that might shrink if the Citizens money floods in epic levels. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 I'm basing what I said on what came out of the McMahon camp when they previously discussed running again. Also, I suspect they might have learned that sometimes ad spending can have a negative effect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 Their problem is that Linda's name recognition is Negative. The last polls I saw had her doing much worse agaisnt the two likely nominees compared to several not-so-well known GOP candidates. The only way to change the negatives is to rebuild it. How? You got it, more cash. And no doubt she's going to be surrounded by a team of campaign opperatives who will be more than happy to soak her dry because it's big business. It's going to be too tempting not to drop a lot of cash. Simply getting back into the campaign a year later gives a clear indication of how badly she wants it. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 Here I am fretting over an extra 40 bucks on my light bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 Previewing WWE Linda McMahon's second Connecticut campaign for US Senate Here we go again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 Aw... and here I was worried that we wouldn't have the fun of Linda running next year. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 So, who's gonna get fired so they have more money to waste with this ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 If you're Shane, you have to be pissed off at how much of the inheritance Mom has pissed away in these two runs. On top of the Idiot & Doofus fucking up the company, and lessing the inheritance as well. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 So, who's gonna get fired so they have more money to waste with this ? The first WWE performer to do something stupid! ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted September 22, 2011 Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 Her stance on the issues facing the country remains unchanged, banging on about a balanced budget while promising middle class tax cuts, without detailing how she would plan to cut government spending so drastically that both could be achieved. If you were American, you'd know that tax cuts pay for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted September 22, 2011 Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 If you're Shane, you have to be pissed off at how much of the inheritance Mom has pissed away in these two runs. On top of the Idiot & Doofus fucking up the company, and lessing the inheritance as well. John He probably takes his frustration out on the golf course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 Figured this was worth a bump after the rise of former WWF lobbyist Rick Santorum to become the not-Mitt-Romney of the moment. The NYT did a piece on him: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/polit...-tone.html?_r=2 I find it somewhat interesting that the author knew the term heel but not babyface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 Figured this was worth a bump after the rise of former WWF lobbyist Rick Santorum to become the not-Mitt-Romney of the moment. The NYT did a piece on him: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/polit...-tone.html?_r=2 I find it somewhat interesting that the author knew the term heel but not babyface. It's been so long I'd forgotten the F in WWF stood for Foundation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 Figured this was worth a bump after the rise of former WWF lobbyist Rick Santorum to become the not-Mitt-Romney of the moment. The NYT did a piece on him: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/polit...-tone.html?_r=2 I find it somewhat interesting that the author knew the term heel but not babyface. That's probably because heel is a mainstream term for villain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 It's been so long I'd forgotten the F in WWF stood for Foundation. Holy shit, I can't believe I missed that. And it still hasn't been corrected. That's probably because heel is a mainstream term for villain. Yes, but it's a dated one. When I hear hoofbeats, I don't think of zebras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 That's probably because heel is a mainstream term for villain. Yes, but it's a dated one. When I hear hoofbeats, I don't think of zebras. Yes, but in light of that it maks sense that they'd say "heel" and not "babyface." I remember seeing the "Foundation" mistake before in a Santorum article so this might be an updated reprint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 Linda doing a little plagiarism: Linda McMahon Wrote Keystone Op-Ed Parroting TransCanada John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.