This November, the fate of California rests in the voter's hands... However, in a democratic state, many believe that we are totally screwed and that there is no hope, or that Boxer has political experience... I believe in Fiorina for our Senate, but pure optimism nevers wins. So I am putting them head-to-head here...
If you view candidates as 'worse, or less bad than' the others, than you have to compare it to the McCain vs. Obama election, or to other elections like that. In the contexts that exist, Fiorina is... a better candidate than Boxer.
~ Everyone has faults; and yet there are limits in the sectors in which they exist and work. Fiorina raised her salary; many people do, once they can get more profit from their company. But as a businesswoman, she also has money being re-invested into the company, employees and economy. She understands how money flows, and how it can be channeled to help people and businesses grow.
~Boxer, as part of a political family, should be in the 'business' of helping to heal the economy and preserve a stable, profitable business environment. But she has been California senator for twenty years; she instead supports high taxes, and believes in an agenda that is continuing to pull California's economy down the drain and into the sewer. We need someone who understands that unions have to be shut down, politics as usual needs to stop, and that money has to be returned to the people to be spent on 'buying' the economy back.
This is not about party politics... these statements prove how, economically, that Fiorina is the 'better' candidate.