Those of you rooting against Linda's election can probably take heart from the fact that Connecticut's basically a stronghold for the Democratic Party these days (the Democrats are the equivalent to the Labour Party for those in the U.K.). I don't realistically see them electing any Republican (think Tories) to the seat of Joe Lieberman (even though it's a seat that used to be held by Prescott Bush, father of the 41st President of the U.S. and grandfather of the 43rd, both of whom were as Republican as Prescott was).
The fly in the ointment, however, is the relative dissatisfaction with the current economy in the U.S. and the general discontent the people have with the administration of current U.S. President Barack Obama. Should the economy not see a record-breaking improvement in the next three months, I would say that it will be a tough go for any Democrat running for any office (particularly the top spot). There's also the fact that Linda seems to appeal to a broader spectrum of Republican Party voters than either of her opponents for the Republican nomination (one is supported strongly by the ultra-conservative/right wing elements of the Party while the other seems to be the favorite of the moderate "establishment" wing of the Party, a wing that has been hurt in recent primary elections in the U.S.), and she is currently outpolling both of those worthy gentlemen.
Assuming she's able to hold onto that polling edge through Tuesday of next week, she's got the Republican nomination. If the economy holds as it is (or if it were to worsen), I'd say she's got a better-than-even chance of winning the seat. And all of the screaming MOMs in the world won't stop her, because most of them will simply vote Party in the general election in November rather than vote for the person that's running. And, I'm willing to wager, that a good number of them are Republicans, which means they'll vote for McMahon in November if she's the nominee.
This is grandstanding in the long run, nothing more substantial than that.
wk