I suspect the rigged machines may well steal the election from her. The narrative has already been set with the loss to Brown.
"Steve Grossman to tap own wealth for TV ads; Plans to spend $200,000 during race’s last week" by Frank Phillips | Globe Staff August 27, 2014
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Grossman is putting up $200,000 of his own money to bolster a final-week television advertising blitz, a sign that he and his campaign strategists are increasingly convinced he can close the gap with his chief rival, Martha Coakley, before the Sept. 9 primary.
Grossman strategists, who just last week were staring at a bleak prospect that it would be hard to catch the front-runner, said the candidate made the decision late Monday, as one adviser put it, to “go all out” in the final days with a healthy ad buy.
Whether it will be enough to reshape what has been a lopsided race, with Coakley holding consistent double digit leads in the polls, won’t become evident until the ads begin airing.
Campaign advisers say new polling, Grossman’s recent debate performances, and the issue of Coakley’s controversial settlement with a State House lobbyist have breathed new life into the campaign.
“The polling is moving in our direction,’’ said Grossman’s campaign manager, Josh Wolf, confirming the candidate’s plan to use his personal funds. He pointed to a Suffolk University/Boston Herald poll that suggested the gap has closed to 12 percentage points. A Boston Globe poll last week showed a larger, 21-point gap, though that margin has tightened slightly over several weeks. The third candidate, Donald M. Berwick, continues to trail both Coakley and Grossman.
Grossman’s decision marks the first time he has tapped into his own money to pay for ads in the campaign.
In all, the ad buy is expected to total $300,000, with the remainder paid out of his campaign account.
The content of the ads and even the question of how many will air are still under discussion within the Grossman camp, as is the decision of how tough to go in attacking Coakley. They are expected to start appearing early next week in the Boston and Springfield markets. The size of the ad campaign is aimed at getting the average TV viewer to see the spots at least five times during the period they are on air.
One veteran Democratic strategist, Lou DiNatale, doubts the ad campaign will be sufficient to close the gap.
He said Grossman — who holds a large stake in his family’s marketing company — would have to infuse more of his personal cash to make a difference.
“That is not a big buy, and there is already a competition for air time now,’’ DiNatale said. “Grossman needs more than what $300,000 can buy. He should double down at the very least to have a shot at closing the gap.”
He probably will.
A Grossman strategist said the state treasurer may again assess his prospects later this week and make a decision on whether to dip further into his personal funds for advertising.
Already this month, the Grossman campaign has spent more than $550,000 on television ads.
Coakley, who is airing about $200,000 worth of ads this week, plans to spend $250,000 on advertising in the last week of the campaign, according to a top adviser.
Asked about the forthcoming Grossman ads, her campaign spokeswoman noted that previous ads benefitting Grossman have “had little impact as voters show consistently strong support for Martha in every public poll on the race.”
Still, Grossman’s decision to make a serious effort to catch Coakley in the final stretch has the potential to inject energy into a gubernatorial campaign that has failed to stir much interest, even among political insiders. Berwick, too, has hoped to bolster his numbers with an ad campaign that began last week.
Related: Berwick's Bullsh**
Even if Grossman fails to score an upset, he could still potentially deny Coakley a decisive victory that would help her raise money and energize Democrats in what is expected to be a tough general election fight.
Grossman’s ads will join a flood of political advertising that will start to inundate the airwaves as candidates — and super PACs — try to catch the attention of voters, some of whom are just returning from summer vacations, on the Labor Day weekend in the days before the primary.
Unlike past years, that period between Labor Day and the primary will be truncated. Until this season, primary elections took place in mid-September. This year’s balloting is scheduled just eight days after Labor Day.
A previous Grossman ad chided Coakley for being a “career prosecutor’’ while claiming Grossman, who ran his family’s business before becoming state treasurer, is a “proven jobs creator.” Another ad touted Grossman’s plan for universal prekindergarten, saying it shows he is a “progressive’’ job creator who can foster a strong economy.
He's also a former head of AIPAC, and that instantly disqualifies him with me; however, this state is under Israeli thumb so maybe he should be governor. Maybe we should just be what we are.
In 2002, when he was competing for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, Grossman spent a $1 million of his own money before dropping out two months before the primary election. Since then, the value of his family’s company — which started as a prosperous envelope business but has since evolved into a marketing firm — has declined.
I guess that is why he fired the first salvo this year.
So far this year Grossman has spent none of his own money on the race. He has raised just over $1 million for his gubernatorial campaign, and, as of the last reporting period, Aug. 15, had roughly $222,000 left in his account. The new media buy will depend on $100,000 from his campaign funds. The remaining money in that account is expected to be used to keep the campaign operations running through the primary.
Wow, he plowed through all that money and is still trailing by double digits?
--more--"
Related: Voters can see this dynamic throughout the day on their TV screens
Click.
"Democratic gubernatorial candidates face off in bitter debate" by Joshua Miller | Globe Staff August 25, 2014
In the most bitter debate of the Democratic gubernatorial race so far, Treasurer Steve Grossman sharply questioned the judgment of front-runner Martha Coakley on Monday, painting her as a protector of the Beacon Hill establishment, as former Medicare and Medicaid chief Don Berwick attacked his rivals for their support of casino gambling and their embrace of “politics as usual.”
Looks to me like you are all part of it.
Coakley, the attorney general, defended herself and offered a few hits on Grossman, but also aimed some fire at Republican Charlie Baker, the leading GOP contender for governor.
Two weeks before the Sept. 9 state primary, the three Democratic candidates vying for their party’s nod upped their rhetoric against one another right from the beginning of an hourlong Boston Herald Radio debate.
The forum came the same day as a Suffolk University/Boston Herald poll found Coakley leading her rivals among likely Democratic primary voters. The attorney general took 42 percent to Grossman’s 30 percent and Berwick’s 16 percent in the new survey.
Also Monday, Baker and Mark Fisher, the other GOP candidate, politely disagreed in a debate at the Globe.
Fisher, affiliated with the Tea Party, staked out conservative ground on issues such as abortion rights, while Baker, who supports abortion rights, emphasized his fiscally conservative, socially moderate positions.
Related: Baker Taking Lowell Road to Governorship
Fisher said a candidate espousing conservative positions more in line with the national Republican Party, as he does, will energize voters across Massachusetts. Baker said a focus on pocketbook issues, as opposed to social ones, is the best path forward for the state GOP.
At the Democratic debate, Grossman was the most direct. He condemned Coakley’s settlement with a lobbying firm led by former state legislator John Brennan over allegations that the firm collected $370,000 in improper lobbying fees from a local hospital. In the settlement, the Brennan Group did not admit any guilt but agreed to pay the hospital $100,000.
Grossman mentioned that Coakley’s first TV ad said she’s spent a career fighting for people without money or power.
“This was a guy with money, with power, and he was allowed to walk. Didn’t even get a slap on the wrist,” Grossman said, later noting that Brennan had contributed to Coakley.
“I guess on Beacon Hill, there are some people who are just too connected to fail,” he said.
Coakley defended the settlement and stood by the decision her office had made.
The hospital, she said, came to the attorney general’s office and asked it to look at the issue. “We did a thorough investigation on the facts and the law,” she said. “We had significant statute of limitations issues — many things that come in on whether you can successfully bring a case or not — as well as factual issues.”
So, Coakley indicated, based on circumstances, the office got the best result it could for the state. “We got $100,000 that went back to the hospital that they wouldn’t have gotten otherwise,” she said.
Turning the tables a bit, she said she didn’t assume Grossman had done anything wrong in his oversight of industries that have contributed more than $150,000 to his campaign.
Her campaign sent the Globe a list of what it said were campaign contributions to Grossman from people who work for companies in the liquor and catering industries. As treasurer, Grossman oversees the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission.
After the debate, Grossman told reporters he supported a number of issues that the alcoholic beverage industry opposes. He cited a law increasing the minimum wage and ballot initiatives on earned sick time and the bottle bill.
Grossman said Coakley had “a pattern of bad judgment” not just with the Brennan Group settlement, but also on other issues, including her decision to allow Partners HealthCare to acquire South Shore Hospital and Hallmark Health System instead of filing a lawsuit to stop the merger.
Coakley defended her record of going after what she called “well-monied institutions.”
Berwick, for his part, made a robust effort to frame himself not only as the most progressive candidate, who would “end chronic homelessness,” but also as a proven, effective leader of big organizations, who was above the petty “bickering” that Coakley and Grossman engaged in.
“Listen to the debate here: back and forth and back and forth,” Berwick said. “Running for office is different from managing. My opponents . . . [are] professional politicians. In the corner office, you need someone who understands management and leadership.”
He referenced his work as a founder and leader of the influential Institute for Healthcare Improvement, and his tenure as President Obama’s administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees those massive federal programs.
In his most passionate comments, Berwick contrasted his position in favor of the ballot initiative to repeal the state’s casino gambling law with Coakley and Grossman, who support keeping the current law.
“Casinos are predators on the poor,” he said, his voice tinged by emotion. “And the idea that a progressive, my opponents, would stand up and allow that kind of injury to occur to the very people they claim to be defending — I just can’t go there; it’s irresponsible leadership.”
Coakley also offered an attack on Baker, whom she called “Charlie ‘Big Dig’ Baker,” over his involvement with the massive transportation project, when he held top positions in state government in the 1990s. Coakley said he left behind a mess.
Both parties were behind that debt monstrosity.
Baker, speaking after the GOP debate, said that he was involved in an important but small piece of the multiyear project: “a financing plan to pay for a federal shortfall.”
Another Suffolk-Herald poll surveyed likely Republican primary voters. It found Baker leading Fisher by a whopping 59 percentage points.
Each poll surveyed 400 likely party primary voters from Aug. 21-24 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.
Also running for governor are three independent candidates.
Who shall remain nameless?
--more--"
"At health care forum, Coakley defends Partners deal" by Joshua Miller | Globe Staff August 21, 2014
Under attack from gubernatorial rivals at a forum Wednesday night, Attorney General Martha Coakley defended her decision to allow Partners HealthCare to acquire South Shore Hospital and Hallmark Health System instead of filing a lawsuit to stop the merger.
She said the agreement — which still must be approved by a judge — would help “put a net over the bigness of Partners” and reduce the rise of health care costs.
“It would immediately level the playing field for competitors, compared to what the situation is now,” she said.
Related: The AG's Amnesia
The proposed agreement would impose some price controls and work to limit the huge company’s bargaining power.
Treasurer Steve Grossman, one of Coakley’s two Democratic opponents in the Sept. 9 primary, said the decision would ultimately cost businesses and consumers tens of millions of dollars more, citing the state’s Health Policy Commission.
“The deal that Martha Coakley has presented to the judge is the wrong deal at the wrong time, which is going to cost too much money,” he said.
Evan Falchuk, a former businessman who is one of the three independent candidates, said the decision would continue the trend toward consolidation of health care providers, which he cited as a major driver of continually increasing health care costs.
“Partners, or the big systems, are too big to fail. They’re too big to fail, so they get to play by different rules,” he said.
Falchuk disputed what he said was the contention by Partners that its acquisition of South Shore Hospital would save a lot of money over the next 10 years. That’s “apparently due to some series of awesomeness they would bring to the table that saves that kind of money,” he said, voice tinged by sarcasm. “It doesn’t stack up.”
The back-and-forth about Coakley’s proposed agreement with Partners, the state’s largest hospital and doctors network, was a rare flashpoint at a staid, wonkish forum at the Dimock Center in Roxbury. There, seven of the eight candidates for governor gathered under a large white tent on a beautiful night to discuss health care.
One of the others was when Scott Lively, an independent candidate and a Christian pastor best known for his antigay activity, panned President Obama’s health care overhaul.
“Obamacare is socialized medicine,” Lively said to boos and heckling from the audience.
The event was moderated by former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis, who, with avuncular charm, offered questions to the candidates and peppered them with anecdotes about his life.
Republican Charlie Baker, a former health insurance company chief executive, was the sole candidate who did not appear at the forum.
His GOP opponent, businessman Mark R. Fisher, repeatedly criticized Baker for not showing up.
“This is at least the seventh forum where Charlie Baker has been a no-show,” Fisher said. “People have to show up in order to lead.”
Baker’s public schedule had him slated to attend events in Springfield on Wednesday.
“We have five debates with Fisher and have participated in countless forums,” Baker spokesman Tim Buckley said in a statement.
Also at the forum were venture capital investor Jeff McCormick, an independent, and Democrat Don Berwick, a former Obama administration health care official.
I don't see how that helps him after they ruined the website.
--more--"
Related: Democratic candidates for governor spar in debate
Grossman made a forceful argument for the job-creating potential of casinos. That argument has an audience. Polls show Democratic voters support the casino law. The debate had some light moments. Kornacki asked, in a lightning round, if the candidates had ever gambled in a casino. “I have and I’ve also inhaled,” said Grossman.
So he'll cut through the red tape with the medical marijuana clinics?
Related:
"The Bartlett e-mails portray an agency acutely concerned about its image during the contentious selection process, and reveal that the health commissioner is searching for a job outside the administration of Governor Deval Patrick amid mounting questions about her past friendship with Delahunt. The e-mails suggest a concerted effort to blunt criticism about the selection process and to “manage the message and the story.”
3 more firms sue over marijuana licensing
Must not have had the right lobbyists.
"Galvin to launch inquiry into lobbyist" by David Scharfenberg | Globe Staff August 21, 2014
Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin criticized Attorney General Martha Coakley’s handling of a case involving a prominent lobbyist Wednesday and launched his own inquiry into the lobbyist’s activities.
The move added to a simmering controversy about Coakley’s settlement with lobbyist John Brennan, a former state representative and state senator, just weeks before Coakley faces Democratic primary voters in the gubernatorial election.
“The agreement raises more questions than it answers,” said Galvin, in an interview.
Coakley’s office alleges that Brennan’s firm, the Brennan Group, collected $370,000 in improper lobbying fees from the Franciscan Hospital for Children for work performed between 2004 and 2006.
Brennan, according to the attorney general, had a contingency fee contract with Franciscan that allowed the firm to collect a commission on the money it won for the hospital on Beacon Hill. State law bars contingency agreements.
In the settlement, signed last week, the Brennan Group made no admission of guilt but agreed to repay Franciscan $100,000 of the $370,000 in disputed lobbying fees it was paid by the hospital.
Coakley’s office maintains that pursuing a criminal prosecution would have been too risky, for a number of reasons: A six-year statute of limitations may have invalidated the case, prosecutors had questions about the credibility of one of their key witnesses, and there was no case law on some critical questions in the case.
“I believe, and I will stand by what we’ve said, that based on the facts in our investigation, we made the right call,” Coakley said as she left a gubernatorial candidates forum Wednesday night.
Brad Puffer, a Coakley spokesman, added that a failed prosecution could have left Franciscan with nothing.
Concern about an uncertain court result is enshrined in the settlement itself, with the attorney general’s office and the Brennan Group agreeing that “the absence of a clear legal precedent” made it “hard to predict the outcome.”
But Galvin, who oversees lobbying activities, objected to that sort of language. “The ambivalence of the agreement I find disturbing,” he said. “Contingency fees are illegal.”
The secretary of state said the fees at issue in the case are worrisome because they tie the development of public policy too closely to private financial gain.
That's our $y$tem.
Galvin’s office launched its investigation Wednesday with a letter to the Brennan Group requesting contracts, billing statements, and other documentation related to the firm’s work with Franciscan.
Galvin told the Globe he is also interested in whether Brennan had contingency contracts with other clients, suggesting a wider investigation could be in the offing.
The Coakley-Brennan agreement releases the lobbying firm from “any further civil or criminal liability” in the Franciscan matter. But Galvin argues that it does not prevent him from fining the Brennan Group or, if the facts warrant, suspending the firm.
The Brennan Group, in a statement, said it “vigorously denies any violation of law” but agreed to the settlement “to put this matter behind us.”
Franciscan Hospital, which referred the matter to the attorney general’s office in early 2012, said in a statement that it “would like to thank Attorney General Martha Coakley for resolving the issue.”
Coakley announced the deal in a press release Friday. The controversy bubbled up Tuesday, when the Boston Herald posted a story on its website that highlighted past political contributions from Brennan and other lobbyists at his firm to Coakley.
Treasurer Steve Grossman, who is running for governor, brought up the donations at a gubernatorial debate Tuesday night and asked Coakley why she did not pursue the full $370,000 in contingency fees the Brennan Group allegedly collected.
Coakley brushed off the attack, saying the Brennan campaign contributions were all public record and arguing that the $100,000 settlement was the best her office could do under the circumstances.
But Gregory Sullivan, a former state inspector general who now serves as research director for the right-leaning Pioneer Institute think tank, said that Coakley was not tough enough on Brennan. “If someone robs a bank, you don’t say they can keep two-thirds of the money and walk,” he said.
Actually, they do. She settled with the banks over the bad MBSs and fraudulent foreclosures.
Turns out the settlements are nothing more than kickbacks after the fact.
Sullivan said the case was emblematic of an attorney general who has treated Beacon Hill with “kid gloves,” noting that it was federal prosecutors who took on the high-profile corruption cases of former Massachusetts House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and former Probation Commissioner John J. O’Brien.
I have wondered myself why she never initiates any investigations.
Related: O'Brien's Conspiracy
Sal is rotting in a jail cell with cancer.
The attorney general’s office defended her record, arguing federal prosectors were better positioned to take DiMasi and O’Brien to court given the wide range of federal laws at their disposal. Puffer said Coakley has taken action against more than 40 public employees and officials since 2007.
The Brennan Group lobbied state lawmakers, on Franciscan’s behalf, for funds that buttress hospitals with large numbers of Medicaid patients and others who struggle to pay for care. The attorney general’s office asserts, in the settlement, that some of the funds were specifically earmarked for Franciscan.
But in some cases, according to the agreement, Franciscan was added to a pool of hospitals eligible for state funding. It was then up to Massachusetts Health and Human Services officials to disburse the money.
The Brennan Group argued that because the ultimate decision was made by Health and Human Services officials — and not the legislators it lobbied under its contract with Franciscan — there was no true contingency fee arrangement.
--more--"
Related: Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvinizes Lobbyists
"Inquiry into Bridgewater death ordered; Coakley names special prosecutor to review case, look at prisons where mentally ill are held" by Michael Rezendes | Globe Staff August 27, 2014
Attorney General Martha Coakley on Tuesday named a former Middlesex prosecutor to conduct a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the 2009 death of Joshua K. Messier, a 23-year-old mental health patient who died at Bridgewater State Hospital while poorly trained prison guards strapped his wrists and ankles to the corners of a small bed.
Related: Not Over Troubled Bridgewater
I don't think I ever will be.
The state medical examiner ruled Messier’s death a homicide at the hands of the guards, but Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J.Cruz never presented evidence to a grand jury to determine whether criminal charges were warranted. He later said there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with a crime, even though Messier’s death was captured on video.
Coakley asked special prosecutor Martin F. Murphy to conduct an independent investigation to resolve “lingering questions” about the events of the May 4, 2009, death, and to take a wider look at conditions at Bridgewater and other state prisons where the mentally ill are confined.
“We all feel that what happened to Joshua Messier was a tragedy. The fact that it occurred in state custody makes it even more compelling,” Coakley said, adding that she also asked Murphy to “take a broader look at what went wrong and help us moving forward to see if there are changes we need to make at Bridgewater and at other places where people who suffer from mental health disorders are in custody.”
It breaks your heart when you know what was happening behind those walls.
Coakley, as the attorney for state agencies, represented nine prison guards who were involved in Messier’s death in a civil lawsuit filed by Messier’s family. Her office, along with a private firm that provides medical and mental health care at Bridgewater, agreed to settle the case for $3 million earlier this year.
Why is the taxpayer picking up their legal bill?
******
Coakley, who is running for governor, appointed Murphy after an attorney for Messier’s mother, Lisa Brown, and four prominent groups that advocate for the mentally ill formally requested that she name a special prosecutor, accusing state officials of presiding over a “whitewash” of the circumstances surrounding Messier’s death.
That is what government does, be it weed, the DCF, this.
Murphy said he accepted Coakley’s request to help provide peace of mind to the Messier family and to buttress public confidence in the state’s criminal justice system.
Yup, once again it is about IMAGE!
******
Bridgewater State Hospital is a medium-security prison staffed by state prison guards and privately employed clinicians. Despite its name, it is neither licensed nor accredited as a hospital.
The facility houses about 280 mental health patients, ranging from dangerous convicted criminals to those charged with minor offenses who have been committed for psychiatric evaluations.
Calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor followed a February Boston Globe story that uncovered many of the circumstances surrounding Messier’s death and raised questions about the actions of more than a half-dozen prison guards as well as nurses employed by a private contractor, the Massachusetts Partnership for Correctional Health.
Follow the links back far enough and you will see.
The Globe found that guards had violated at least a half-dozen state laws, regulations, and Bridgewater policies after responding to an emergency triggered when Messier, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, punched a prison guard.
The Globe story also reported that, nearly five years after Messier’s death, none of the prison guards had been disciplined. But after the story, Governor Deval Patrick suspended three of the guards with pay, pending disciplinary proceedings, fired an assistant deputy commissioner, and issued reprimands to the Bridgewater superintendent and Luis S. Spencer, the commissioner of the Department of Correction.
More recently, Patrick fired Spencer after another Bridgewater mental health patient was allegedly beaten by prison guards and Spencer slowed down an internal investigation of the case.
Related: Patrick Building Bridge Over Troubled Water
One more component of a completely failed governorship.
On Tuesday, Brown said that the appointment of a special prosecutor marked an additional commitment to hold state officials accountable for their actions before and after her son’s death.
“From the start, I wanted nothing more than a fair and impartial investigation to ensure that those responsible for my son’s death would be held accountable. I am now confident that such a process will commence,” Brown said in a statement to the Globe.
Roderick MacLeish Jr., Brown’s attorney, lauded Coakley’s leadership, while maintaining that Department of Correction officials had attempted to cover up the circumstances surrounding Messier’s death.
“From the day after Joshua Messier’s death, the Department of Correction and its senior leaders took steps to conceal the truth and exonerate the correction officers who were involved before the facts were known,” he said. “Now it appears that an investigation that should have taken place five years ago is finally going to commence.”
Leslie Walker, the executive director of Prisons’ Legal Services, one of the advocacy groups that signed a letter to Coakley, also commended Murphy’s appointment.
“I am very pleased and relieved that someone of Mr. Murphy’s reputation will be looking at this horrific episode with a fresh set of eyes,” she said.
--more--"
Even the Globe approves:
"Clearing the way for justice" August 28, 2014
The murky death in 2009 of Bridgewater State Hospital patient Joshua Messier at the hands of correction officers has long warranted a criminal investigation. But the narrow outlook of Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz stood as a barrier to justice. This week, Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is running for governor, put aside the pressure from the correction officers and law enforcement colleagues and named a special prosecutor to conduct an independent probe. She deserves credit for putting the interests of justice ahead of politics.
As a rule, such cases should be handled at the county level. But the Messier case, which was exposed by the Globe in February, cried out for closer attention. The 23-year-old Messier, who suffered from profound mental illness, died of cardiopulmonary arrest after being restrained by guards. The condition of his body, including blunt force trauma wounds, prompted a state medical examiner to rule the death a homicide. But Cruz failed to present evidence to a grand jury and has remained steadfast in his belief that there is insufficient cause to charge anyone with a crime, even though Messier’s death was captured on video.
Coakley’s choice of Boston lawyer Martin Murphy to lead the investigation should put both Messier’s family and the public at ease. In his days as a Middlesex prosecutor, Murphy supervised more than 100 murder cases. For the first time since the uncovering of the Messier case, there is a strong sense that justice will be served.
--more--"
Also see:
Lessons learned, lessons lived for Martha Coakley
Even before primary, GOP PAC takes aim at Coakley
Also ran:
"Jeff McCormick, 52, a wealthy venture capitalist with no political experience, has hardly made a blip on the campaign trail. He is stuck in single-digit numbers in the polls, two high-profile strategists have fled the campaign, and his fund-raising is anemic. The thinly staffed campaign has no grass-roots organization. On top of that, voter anger at partisan party politics in Massachusetts — a central issue for McCormick’s candidacy — does not appear to be a serious factor in this year’s election. His struggles have the political world reassessing his potential impact in November. Even if he does not develop into a major candidate, some political analysts contend, McCormick could still siphon critical votes from the GOP’s endorsed candidate, Charlie Baker. So far, however, the potential spoiler has not been doing much spoiling."
As if Baker were entitled to those votes?
