In this corner, weighing in with five consecutive victories in the US House of Representatives, three-terms as a California state Senator, we have House Majority whip and incumbent Barbara Boxer! Pro-women's choice, strong on the environment and one of the few Senators to stand against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Boxer's record speaks for it owns.
In the opposite corner, opposing our local heavy weight, is none other than ex-Chief executive officer of Hewlett Packard, first woman to lead a Fortune 20 company, Carly Fiorina! Anti-abortion, pro-globalization, with possible leanings toward Global Warming denialism, Fiorina may be a relative new-comer to the world of politics, but this rising star has all the hallmarks of a favored Republican nominee heavily favored by the Tea Party acerebrals.
So we know where things stand going into this debate, Nate Silver of the brilliant FiveThirtyEight.com has crunched the numbers and puts California's election at 58.7% in favor of a third term for Barbara Boxer with a projected 49.3% of the vote.
Will tonight change all that? Will Fiorina cause an upset?
With questions ranging from right to life, gun control and most likely a heavy focus on what either can do about California's struggling economy, anything is possible.
Tune in to OaklandSkeptic.com to discuss the full debate, no cuts, no edits, no annoying talking heads.
-----------------
With strong back and forth between Fiorina and Boxer in that hour debate, both speakers had their highs and lows. The jabs were quick and stinging, but was anything said you felt shook things up?
For my money, the victory was for Fiorina. Stronger overall, with an aggressive posture that dominated even the moderator at points (continuing to push past her time and giving non-answers to politically difficult questions) she was better able to sew the doubt she wanted while keeping Boxer defensive.
Tactically, a strong victory even if light on substance.
Comments
If Fiorina is "light on substance" that is not a win. She is spending heavily along with Meg to buy the vote. I'm "skeptical" about all these anti-Boxer ads on this page.
History (and psychology) show that political debts are rarely won on talking points. The public opinion is swayed by what they see (think Nixon v Kennedy where radio listeners thought Nixon won but television viewers were turned of).
Boxer had more content and better points, but Fiorina controlled the flow of conversation and dominated the room better.
I am not sure what Tucker meant by Boxer having had more content and better points, I thought she was in fact quite unprepared, not only was she checking her notes very often but she couldn't use concrete examples with real numbers and data, which by contrast I throught Fiorina was way better prepared with numbers and examples. I also thought that because she was unprepared, Boxer had to resolve to attacking Fiorina, which I personally never appreciate in a debate. I would so much rather hear what a candidate has to offer and why they are the right person rather than hearing them slamming on the opponent. I would hope that most people would have seen the obvious difference between the two candidates and would agree that Fiorina is more solid, articulated and more capable all around than Boxer.
Are you kidding me? Boxer showed that Fiorina is all about HER bottom line. Not the people of California. She says she doesn't care how workers are affected. It's the businesses here. She doesn't care if the jobs are OUTSOURCED. Listen to the debate again. Yes, the companies might be housed in California, but the workers will still be either working overseas or will come to the United States on "contract" from countries such as India, China, South America, etc. Nothing against the people of those countries, but when companies like http://www.1040scan.com can be housed in Newport Beach/Irvine, CA while contracting workers from India for literally only a few hundreds of dollars per month. Does that inject anything into the economy of California? HELL NO! Whether they're working in India or contracted to work from India but work here in California, it doesn't benefit California. It benefits the corporations and the Indian economy or wherever the workers are. AND THAT'S WHAT FIORINA WANTS - SHE JUST WANTS THE CORPORATIONS TO BENEFIT NOT THE WORKERS OR NECESSARILY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ITS ECONOMY!
I am not a resident of California, but I have been here on business for the last 8 months and that woman "Fiorina" scares the crap out of me if she becomes your Senator not only just for her stance on sending jobs overseas but voting to overturn Roe v. Wade. She never answered any of the questions and being a retired Army Interrogator, she blew smoke all night long. I benefit from the Bush tax cuts, but they have to go for incomes in the 200-250K range and Fiorina strikes me as someone that is worried about her fortuned getting taxed as opposed to what's best for you fine folks in the state of California. At least Boxer whether popular or nor, took a stance and stood by it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!