But one reason it may not be attracting even more buzz or financial support has to do with her failed 2010 California Senate race against incumbent Barbara Boxer, who is widely perceived as an ineffective hyperpartisan.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial page shared many of Boxer’s ideological views, but it wouldn’t back her in the 2010 Democratic primary when she was running against neophytes. And it wasn’t even the Times’ first snub. GOPer Matt Fong won the paper’s support in 1998, only to lose to Boxer by 10 percent.

It may not be fair to Fiorina to fault her for not beating a Democratic incumbent in a state that loves Democratic incumbents. Nevertheless, Fiorina’s 52 percent to 42 percent loss to Boxer disappointed many on the right and puzzled many in the mainstream media.

A history of not voting

The conventional wisdom on why she lost focused on the damage done by reports that she barely voted most of her life. The fact that she was a genuine social conservative appeared to hurt her with young and independent voters.

Some pundits contended her business background may not have provided the boost Fiorina expected. This is from the Contra-Costa Times’ analysis:

There’s also the problem that the imperatives of a CEO and a politician are often at odds: Answering to stockholders is a lot different from answering to voters.

Fiorina arguably succeeded in streamlining Hewlett-Packard and making it more competitive with its peers. But that meant firing tens of thousands of workers and sending their jobs overseas — enormous baggage to carry in a political campaign. Boxer bludgeoned Fiorina on that issue.

Writing in the Washington Examiner, Hugh Hewitt didn’t fault Fiorina, instead citing Democrats’ structural advantage in statewide races:

Explanations are more plentiful than roses on Jan. 1, but the short answer is that California’s public employee unions play to win and they do. The secular tithe extracted from the paychecks of the states more than 350,000 government employees is expertly banked and deployed against any enemy, real or perceived, of the states public-sector bosses.

Latino voters disdained immigration hard-liners

An L.A. Times analysis based on exit polls concluded a big problem for Fiorina was her inability to make inroads with Latino voters because of her perceived hard line on immigration issues.

California voters backed a measure that would award citizenship to those who complete college or serve in the military. By a 19-point margin, they endorsed an immigration reform plan that would allow citizenship for those who fulfill specific requirements like paying a fine.

In all cases, those views were held more strongly by Latino voters. They supported comprehensive reform by a 58 point margin. They also opposed, by a lopsided 58 percent to 35 percent, banning illegal immigrants from emergency room treatment or public schools. Among all voters, that question drew the narrowest result, with 49 percent opposing restrictions to 44 percent supporting them.

Fiorina’s interest in a presidential bid may have other aspects than just a hope to end up in the Oval Office. She may want to raise her profile to guarantee she is considered for a Cabinet post in case a better-funded, better-positioned Republican wins the presidency in 2016.

There’s also the evidence that the Legislature isn’t as wacky as it used to be since open primaries became the norm in 2012. In a U-T San Diego editorial, I looked at some theories as to why that might be:

“[There is] evidence that 2012’s elections — in which all Assembly and half the Senate seats were up for grabs — had the moderating effect that [open-primary proponent Abel] Maldonado hoped, specifically on majority Democrats. In 2013 and so far in 2014, the Legislature has not been the liberal self-caricature it often seemed over the past 15 years.

“This is backed by a study of voting patterns from 2011-2013 by USC professor Christian R. Grose. It showed significantly more moderate stands among Assembly Democrats and some signs that Senate Democrats have moderated as well.

“But are open primaries driving this development? Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, says there may be more moderate Democrats than before, but they’ll vote the union line when Senate and Assembly leaders apply pressure. Coupal also says Senate Democrats have been weakened by the scandals hanging over three members of their caucus. And he says Gov. Jerry Brown’s pragmatism and sensitivity to ‘job-killer’ bills may also inhibit lawmakers from acting on their normally liberal instincts.

“So it’s probably far too soon to decide whether Abel Maldonado will be a footnote or a key figure in state history.”

More consequential: Rift pitting Latinos vs. teachers

But for my money, there’s potentially much bigger news unfolding. That’s the possibility that the Vergara lawsuit over anti-Latino state education policies and the Tuck vs. Torlakson race for state superintendent of public education could finally make teacher unions and the Latino community the adversaries they should have been for years.

Who is best served by the state education status quo? Mostly white teachers who belong to the CTA and CFT. Who is worst served by the state education status quo? Mostly Latino students in poor communities.

If/when this dynamic comes to the fore, it would be far more potent than a change in election rules. The CTA/CFT are the Dems’ fiscal muscle. Latino voters are the Dems’ key voter base. If they get into it — and they should, they should — California will change in dramatic ways.