kjh Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Linda McMahon vs. Chris Murphy, the match is now officially signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...urphy-2111.html PPP poll in September: Murphy 50, Linda 43 PPP poll three weeks ago: Murphy 50, Linda 42 This election is Murphy's to lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 While 7 points is a substantial lead, the gap isn't as wide as I would have expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 It's about where I would have expected it. Linda got 43.2% of the vote in 2010. That's pretty much where her ceiling has been in the polling so far: getting the folks who voted for her last time against a candidate who was a little shaky at times. In turn, Murphy is running state-wide for the first time. He's not as fully known, moving from State Rep (1 of 151 in the state) to State Senator (1 of 36) to US Rep (1 of 5 in CT). John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 A hypothetical 45-38 lead would give Linda a decent outside shot. 50-42 MUCH less so, because it means Linda needs to get significantly better turnout from her base *and* win around 3/4ths of the undecideds. Voters are less and less likely to drop a candidate with the increase in partisanship nationwide, so she can't count on swaying any of those currently supporting Murphy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 Linda McMahon benefits from political silly season in Connecticut One poll shows Linda ahead by 3% after she ran a series of ads criticising Murphy for absenteeism for Congressional financial hearings. There's the fun of the McMahon campaign criticising Murphy for landing expensive earmarks for Connecticut job creation, while WWE under Linda took advantage of the same tax subsidies for job creation in their movie division. Also, WWE crowing about Murphy running ads during Monday Night Raw proving that they're family friendly programming. Murphy's ad response to being behind in the polls is what you would expect: As CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment Linda McMahon had a plan. Shift profits overseas to avoid U.S. taxes. Deny her employees healthcare and disability [benefits] to increase her profits. Now McMahon has another plan: tax cuts for the wealthy, including a $7 million tax cut for herself. McMahon's plan for the middle class: cuts to medicare and education. Linda McMahon: always for her, never for us. I think if this is all the dirt they've got on Murphy, then she'll have a tough time keeping the race close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted August 29, 2012 Report Share Posted August 29, 2012 CT is polling way less Democratic than usual this year for no reason I can think of. Romney within single digits would be the only scenario where Linda has a real chance, and I'm really skeptical she would do 10 points better than Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted August 29, 2012 Report Share Posted August 29, 2012 Early polling after (i) she locked up the nomination to draw the entire GOP to her, and (ii) has spent a boatload to rehab her image. Murphy has only recently put much effort into the General, instead also focusing on getting the nomination. There are diminishing returns on Linda's money (and outside money for her) in the state simply because he's a small state, and relatively cheap (to larger states) to get your message out. It's not terribly bad to see her close: it focuses the Dems on knowing a reasonable amount will need to be spent to have Murphy win. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Keith Olbermann said on his Twitter that Linda has bailed on Romney after the fallout from the "47%" video. Any links to back this up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81340.html It might be an overstatement to say that she bailed on Romney, but Republicans in blue states are doing everything they can to distance themselves from his remarks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Keith Olbermann overstating something? Get outta here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 But McMahon made a similar statement in an interview with a local television station last year. The interview was flagged by the liberal super PAC American Bridge. “I’d like to see everyone pay their fair share,” McMahon told WTNH on the day her campaign launched. “Forty-seven percent of the people today don’t pay any taxes, so let’s have a fair tax code where everybody pays their taxes.” LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 So her big idea was to take from people who have nothing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 So her big idea was to take from people who have nothing? It's the entire Republican platform. Take the one progressive tax we have and make it regressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 I love it. R's complain about high taxes, then pass tax cuts that end up leading to a good chunk of people not paying any federal income taxes at all. If I were Romney (or any R candidate), I'd be like, "Sweet! Mission accomplished! Now let's start working on the other 53 percent that are still stuck paying federal income taxes." But what do the R's do? Start bitching about people who don't pay federal income taxes, largely due to tax cuts that they themselves pushed for and enacted! Whenever I think wrestling is too absurd to continue following, I just turn on Fox News. My faith in wrestlingis immediately restored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 edit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 This will be interesting to see if it gets any traction: http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/diary/14465/he...t-voters-to-see On the 47% item, it makes Linda look bad: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/19/1...-point-she-used She was for the 47% talking point before she was against it. Richer than Mitt and wants to cut her own taxes? It's a hard talking point for her that's going to be hammered. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Her campaign is very WWE-like in its hubris. She blatantly misquoted a journallist on one of her flyers, and when the journalist complained and demanded a retraction they basically told her tough shit. Also the deal with WWE pulling Attitude Era stuff off YouTube to keep Linda's enemies from having easy access to ammo against her makes me wonder how is that not breaking the rules that state a company can't assist a candidate like that? One is clearly helping the other here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Its not just attitude era, WWE has been on a take down rampage. Including accounts that showed only old 80s NWA and Mid South. I can't be too mad about it. Unlike WB and Sony, WWE actually puts a lot of content out there, between their website, Youtube, 24/7 and Netflix. They are not IP hoarding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Yeah, a lot of my YouTube wrestling playlists have been shrinking lately due to the crackdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 http://theday.com/article/20120918/NWS12/120919659/1047 http://m.theday.com/assets/pdf/NL124742918.PDF It really is amazing how long this thing lingered: from 4/19/76 to 2/26/82. The other odd thing is that it's strange how Vince went that far into debt *before* he owned Capital Sports / Titan Sports / WWF. Linda and he have made some odd claims about how they went into bk: Linda claims it was while building the WWE business, while Vince has a vague comment about it being after he made his first fortune and from bad investments. Given the IRS and bank creditors being the major players, it... doesn't really add up. Of course Murphy has his own financial issue with the foreclosure against his home. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Didn't Vince lose a lot of money promoting Evel Knievel's Snake River jump on closed circuit in the mid 70's, and the Ali/Inoki debacle? As well as some other, smaller promotional failings such as boxing or arena investment? He promoted one or both of those events with Bob Arum's Top Rank, which is listed as a creditor for $4,600 or so The failed investment in construction and cement that Vince cites in the Playboy article also adds up, as a good deal of the creditors are related to that, such as Conn. state pension plans, insurance, etc. that he stopped paying into A lot of the creditors claim small amounts indicating they were recent bills Vince was unable to pay as he was in the red, such as a what looks to be a chartered flight with a small airline, a stay at a Marriot, etc. The large amounts owed to banks make perfect sense. Given McMahon's business connections and at one time real or presumed wealth, it's no surprise that multiple banks would allow him large lines of credit, either direct loans or credit cards issued through the banks I doubt Vince stopped paying federal taxes outright for 5 years, just used "creative accounting" to shield his wealth, and got caught. Explains why to this day he hates the IRS so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Sr. was allegedly small investor in the Snake River jump, but the real money man was Shelly Saltman which led to a rather famous side story. I think Vince's involvement and potential losses in Inoki-Ali is wildly overstated. Instead given the massive loans, it comes across that Vince was living to high on the hog. The IRS debt looks to be simple standard pro wrestling lying about income / under reporting. Vince didn't have enough cash to cover it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 McMahon: I'll make good on my debts Shouldn't she have done this 2 years ago, given how much she made of her bankruptcy story in her first campaign? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 On that $33K that's still owed, how about 10% annual penalty on failure to pay, compunding monthly for 36 years... http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compo..._calculator.htm $1,196,024.97 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.