Here’s what I don’t understand about the throw out all incumbents at all costs thinking. When I was in the business world, and somebody wasn’t performing, I’d either get them on track or fire them if necessary. However, I then had the opportunity to go out and find somebody better to replace them. In politics, if I deside to throw the bum out, I don’t necessarily have that opportunity, unless the challenger happens to be generally in synch with my political beliefs. So, if I’m a conservative Republican, I’m unlikely to vote for a liberal Democrat, just because the Republican has been in office for a long time and because I think Congress in general is not doing its job. Same thing if I’m a Democrat. In that case, why would I vote against Boxer and for somebody who generally does not share my political ideas, just because Boxer has been there a long time? If you’re a Democrat, you try through the nominating process to get a better Democrat. Same thing if you’re a Republican — which is what the Tea Party is doing in many GOP primaries this year.

However, looking back over it now, I see that same poll found voters who are likely to cast a ballot in the November general election support the law by a roughly five to four margin (54 percent approving and 41 percent disapproving) so maybe Fiorina’s stance is more popular than I’d earlier believed.