Sabutai ran some numbers over at his place, and came up with some verrry interesting implications for 2010:
Hypothetical: Tim Cahill runs a meandering campaign that nonetheless does a bit better than Mihos and captures 10% of the vote, or about 220,000 votes. That means that in order to win, Deval Patrick needs to keep his loyal soldiers from the 2006 primary season, and merely add on about one-fifth of the remaining electorate.
I'll repeat that — Deval's winning coalition is:
2006 primary voters + one-fifth of the entire remaining electorate.
Emphasis mine. Of course, there are many many caveats regarding a.) potential erosion of the Patrick base due to casinos or other perceived disappointments, b.) turnout, c.) energy for change, and d.) whether Patrick is perceived as a success 12 months from now, and e.) the execution by the respective political professionals — Plouffe, et al.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure a fractured field — including Cahill — helps Patrick. He's the incumbent, and either you're fer him or agin' him. Splitting the agin' vote helps him out, especially considering the structural advantage that Sab so eloquently lays out.
Run, Tim, Run!
otherwise I would be apt to think he’d sit out just to watch the former boss go down in flames.
why else make the big stink about switching parties now, so far out from when he needed to?
<
p>As regards A, (casinos), the assumption of potential erosion due to casinos seems unlikely when no candidate (yet) has provided a strong alternative perspective on casinos. Or, put another way: to whom will they turn? I don’t know Mihos’ view, nor Bakers, but I’m assuming that Republicans will be either greater cheerleaders for casino revenues or merely lukewarm on the topic. I can’t imagine vociferous opposal. Cahill, it seems to me, would put slot machines in nursing homes and grades schools, if he thought it would generate revenue… so he’s even less of an alternative than Deval for those disappointed by caasinos. They’re more likely, methinks, to stay home.
<
p>Which leads to B. (turnout)… and lower turnout always favors the incumbent.
There seems to be an assumption that the BMG consensus is also the consensus of the electorate at large. Has it occurred to anyone that support for casinos might GAIN some votes?
<
p>I was addressing the assumption that he’d lose votes, but gains seem as likely..
I personally think there is a strong case to be made for starting with one resort casino, for example.
<
p>Based on my reading of the hundreds or thousands of comments on this issue at BMG I’d say that the anti-casino people here are very, very vocal and passionate, but there are a lot of BMGers who are pro casinos, or casinos. I’d guess 40%, but there is no real way to know.
<
p>I think however that there is a strong consensus on BMG against (a) racinos (i.e. slots at dog tracks), and (b) Cahill’s proposal for “temporary, warehouselike structures” for slots. Those are both idiotic ideas.
Your bottom line numbers and general conclusions seem generally right. Pro-casino opinion at BMG is pretty conflicted and tepid, whereas anti-casino opinion is firm and adament. Mostly I feel like the pro-casino camp at BMG includes people who say “well, if CT and RI are going to have casinos anyway, we might as well get in on the action.” The “action” in this case being revenue to fund social programs and the presence of decent union jobs. Some true enviro diehards might support them just to stop people from driving to Foxwoods or Mohegan. And then there are a few libertarian types who want to let the eagle soar.
<
p>That is asinine. Name me one person on BMG that’s made that argument besides you. Total straw man — and a lame one at that.
<
p>In all actuality, people who are deeply concerned about the environment tend to be very much against mega resort casinos, especially placed in small communities which usually have limited water resources. For example, there isn’t enough water in Palmer to even have a casino there — the town would have to spend at least $1.5 million to link up to the Quabbin Reservoir, assuming the authority in charge of the Quabbin allows them to do that.
<
p>Gigantic, mega-resort casinos are, well, gigantic. They have a huge impact on the community at large, including the clearing of huge swaths of lands, drastically changing water runoff and impacting animal habitat. It also brings lots of pollution to any community that allows them, both to power and staff the facility, as well as people driving to and fro the facility. Congratulations for writing one of the most absurd arguments I’ve ever read in the history of my time spent at BMG.
the audubon society is no fan of these facilities — and was officially against the proposed Middleboro site.
<
p>Americans drive a total of about 2,500 billion miles each year. Yeah, 2.5 trillion miles. Foxwoods is 75 miles from Worcester, but let’s even call it 100.
<
p>If 1000 vehicles from MA go to Foxwoods every day (surely an overestimate) and would each save 100 miles each way (also an overestimate), you’ve got 10002100*365 miles in savings: 73,000,000 miles. That also ignores the number of people who would drive to a closer casino but not Foxwoods, cutting the “miles saved” number down. Still, that’s a lot, right.
<
p>Well, its .073 billion, or a 0.00292% reduction in miles traveled.
<
p>Since it doesn’t scale (we can’t apply this casino-to-reduce-mileage principle in 1000s of places), and since the amount saved is so trivial, and since there are tremendous other issues at play, you can be sure of one thing: environmentalists are more concerned about the tremendous amount of energy consumed and trash created an additional casino is responsible for per square foot, customer, or dollar of revenue than the vehicular miles not traveled because the additional casino is closer to some of the gamblers, but that all of those concerns are likely diminished by concerns about labor, poverty, crime, tax revenue, or other casino-related issues.
Ok, it was a shitty, flippant point. Thanks to you and Ryan for appraising me of the view of true enviro diehards đŸ˜‰
But to me that means that few voters will vote for someone because s/he’s for casinos, but there are voters who will vote for a candidate because s/he’s against them. Those folks are up for grabs, particularly if Baker is smart enough to go for them.
per the BMG casino poll that was done. 55%, meanwhile, were against casinos. So, yes, “not everyone on BMG is against casinos,” but a large majority of us are.
So I would be cautious drawing conclusions about the opinions of large number of people “on BMG”. I’m not a strong proponent of casinos, so I’m not motivated to seek out a post, and even less motivated to take a poll about it.
<
p>BUT I’m not vehemently opposed to the idea, and I certainly don’t condemn our Governor for coming up with the proposal in desperate times. And I think a whole lot of people think the way I do.
I try not to engage in too many BMG discussions on issues like casinos since there seems to be a snarky, incredibly arrogant and closed-minded group of BMG regulars who think that the best thing to do is to put folks down (while assuming their own positions are the ones they inherited directly from God… or something like that). You may know a few đŸ™‚
A poll in April showed strong support: http://www.umassd.edu/cfpa/doc…
<
p>Question: “In your opinion, should the state Legislature authorize two or more resort casinos in Massachusetts?”
<
p>Answer: 57% Yes, 31% No, 11% Undecided. (3% margin of error) “The UMass survey showed that a majority of residents support casinos when grouped by age, gender, political party, region and salary level. The only group opposing casinos are those with a masters or doctoral degree who are against casinos by a margin of 46 percent against to 43 percent for.”
I could show you polls in Massachusetts that showed the opposite. And ask people what they think about a casino in their community at large, instead of some mythical place across Massachusetts, and the answer is universally – and vigorously – no.
in a statewide election, not whether people are likely to attend a zoning board meeting to oppose casino development in their town. It appears your anti-casino fervor is clouding your analysis.
which state election are casinos on the ballot?
<
p>And I was talking about polls. Polls have shown that when asked if people would support casinos within a moderately small radius from their home, the answer is no, emphatically.
<
p>And “fervor?” Why do you try to demean my activism? Apparently, it’s totally not cool to actually give a damn about our communities in Massachusetts. Maybe I’ll try harder next time to be more hip and indifferent in life. Viva la apathy!
It appears that this post is about forecasting how the voters will act in the coming election, always a fruitful topic for BMGers. Petr raised the question of how voters will react to candidates on the casino issue. You pick up the thread (after you throw an “asinine” at Paddynoons) and claim that the majority of voters are against casinos. Someone tosses poll numbers at you that you don’t agree with (nothing wrong with that) and you stick to your guns stating:
<
p>
<
p>How people react to a casino in their neighborhood is just about completely irrelevant to how statewide voters will react to a candidate’s position on whether the state should allow such development. I’m not arguing about whether or not people will support a casino in their neighborhood. I don’t think anyone would challenge that conclusion. Hell, most people wouldn’t support an orphanage in their neighborhood! But how is this relevant to the topic at hand? It’s not, so I wanted to point that out.
<
p>I wasn’t trying to “demean” you. I don’t think it’s “totally not cool to give a damn” (do you talk like that?). I’m not “hip and indifferent in life” (well, I am hip. I used to be hep, but that went out of style). All I did was suggest that your anti-casino fervor (no?) was clouding your analysis.
<
p>And I gotta say, it looks like it is.
People at BMG know our opinions are not necessarily the default opinions of Massachusetts. That said, opinions on casinos have varied from poll to poll and greatly depend on how the question is phrased. Furthermore, as I’ve said in the past, while BMG is not necessarily representative of Massachusetts at large, it is fairly representative of Democratic activists in this state, who fuel the state party and primaries. Given that Democrats must win those primaries, that does make our opinions perhaps more significant than they otherwise would be.
If I read this correctly, Sab is assuming Patrick is starting with 700,000 votes, with 452,000 of those votes coming from his primary election supporters. My question is, who does he assume the remaining 248,000 voters are? Party die-hards?
<
p>Even if Sab’s numbers are correct, I would be concerned that Patrick can’t pull that additional magical one-fifth.
<
p>I think Patrick has problems in the following support bases:
<
p>1) the hard-core lefties (not meant as a perjorative) who are horrified at his casino stance and if anything would support a candidate further to the left
2) the non-health care industry unions who are furious that Patrick has been a more successful union buster than Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci and Mitt Romney ever were. I could see these unions FLOCKING to Cahill.
3) centrist Dems who voted for Deval after getting pissed off at a strong of GOP governors parading out of town, but now think (rightly or wrongly) that Deval has been a disaster and are ready to vote for ABD (anyone but Deval)
Deval got over 450,000 in the primary alone, but not nearly all Democrats voted in the primary.
<
p>I disagree that Cahill has much support among anti-gambling people, as he’s more pro-gambling than even Deval. Labor people with whom I’ve talked said he was incredibly hostile to unions during his tenure on Quincy City Council, so I don’t know what his hopes are on that score.
<
p>Cahill’s best shot is #3, the centrist Democrats coming from Democratic family. I just don’t think such people are enough to provide a winning margin.
<
p>There is a real opportunity in this race for a candidate opposed to exploitative gambling and opposed to union-busting, but it seems that all three choices in the general favor both.
Would be the entry of a solid Green party candidate.
<
p>
Is there a viable green candidate out there? I’m not sure, and am interested to hear.
She won many of the debates.
<
p>She got about 1 or 2% of the entire electorate’s vote.
<
p>Sorry, you’re wrong.
She couldn’t win a seat on the Worcester City Council!
<
p>Even with my support.
I missed your point. We agree on this.
I loved Grace Ross. She’s the only green candidate I’ve ever loved. I typically can’t stand the green party. Grace Ross, though, was bright, a great speaker, a compelling debater and very energetic. It’s a shame she limits herself by staying a member of the green party. I feel as though she’d have potential if she ran for an office as a Democrat.
If by “union busting”, you mean not kowtowing to their every demand, no matter how economically reckless, politically indefensible and substantively ridiculous, then maybe you’re right. Seriously, what are you bitching about?
– Quinn Bill?
– Flagmen?
– End of one day = one year?
– End of 23-and-out for future T workers?
<
p>Wow. What a reign of terror for the beleagured public sector union. He might as well bring in the Pinkertons.
of health services by hiring service providers as the head of two agencies – DDS and DSS. The closure of the state’s ICFs is largely a privatization effort, which takes union jobs away from trained, qualified, professional and appropriately paid union members and puts it into the hands of the providers, who with their eye on the bottom line, have filled positions with undertrained caregivers, giving them poor pay – resulting in very high turnovers, inconsistent care and med errors. So yeah – union busting.
I think that speaks as much to how ineffective Weld, Cellucci, and Romney were…
Notwithstanding their ability to act tough at press conferences, those three posers didn’t have the stones to deal with a bunch of whiny Staties picketing their offices…
If you think so. Personally, I think hiring service providers to run the departments they work the market in is poor governance. I think it’s wrong, especially coming from a guy who promised change and the end to “business as usual.” Evidently, Mr. Patrick only meant to promise the end of business as usual for the Repubs and not himself.
what’s the matter, hon? Do you really think hiring vendors to run the departments their pals compete in is a good idea? You don’t have a governance issue with that?
You and I may think that these are reasonable reforms, but the reality is, as far as the unions are concerned, Patrick has been a union buster.
<
p>Not many good public employee union types are going to swing over to Baker since he was the architect of many of Weld’s privatization schemes, but it is possible that Cahill picks up some endorsements — especially from the more conservative-leaning police and fire unions.
Apologies if I mis-attributed these views to you. No doubt you’re right about their worldview. I’m sure the Carmen’s Union and Staties think the apocalypse has arrived.
<
p>They may go for Cahill. A lot of the police unions (including the Staties) endorsed Healey, and I’m sure most of the rank and file in these unions voted R regardless of what their leadership said. As I note below, these people were not instrumental in Deval’s election, and having them in opposition may be a useful foil to shore up his reformer cred in the places the 2010 election will actually be decided.
The Gov. is a “union buster” only by the most extreme of standards. I’d say Patrick is considerably more pro-public union than the average Massachusetts voter. For example, he wasn’t able to get rid of 23 and out at the MBTA and, indeed, the pension reform measure really is just an elimination of the most egregious examples of corruption.
I know education best, and here’s what I’ve seen Deavl propose directly or through his “readiness report”:
<
p>Forced regionalization of school systems
Expanding charters and opening a whole new type of charter
Forcibly merging all teacher unions into one statewide group
Forcing unions into the GIC and overruling local negotiated contracts
Breaking up contracts in 30 schools selected on hidden criteria for state direction
<
p>Five separate moves that have only one thing in common — making it harder for teachers to unionize and negotiate.
is that he lacks any sort of unifying vision. You get the feeling he comes up to a problem, picks it up, and does whatever the hell he feels like doing with it. Unintended consequences be damned. He then looks in the mirror and sees himself as a problem solver.
<
p>Also annoying is that the man is considered a progressive. At best, he’s a Clintonesque liberal, embracing a center right position on education and unions. The Carmen and state police may be bullies, but the vast majority of educator union locals are not. Patrick doesn’t recognize the difference.
<
p>He was a great candidate the first time around. Now he’s just another politician unconscious of what he doesn’t know and conceited enough not to care.
Patrick’s campaign rhetoric raised hopes among unions and service advocates. But when times got economically tough, Patrick did not go out of his way to defend either group.
<
p>And he doesn’t seem able or even particularly motivated to try to work issues through with labor when reform interests and labor interests appear to conflict.
<
p>He’s certainly not as anti-union, or anti-publicly-funded-human-services, as Weld/Celluci/Romney but I think the gap between expectations and results has lost him a lot of support.
And I know a lot of people in my camp. I hear it on the train every morning. People are buzzing about this race, no doubt about it.
I tend to think the 2006 primary coalition is fractured. Remember the field — “establishment” candidates vs. an exciting newcomer.
<
p>Accordingly, I would assume a 20% erosion of that vote, raising the bar a bit.
<
p>It’s still uphill for the others, and I still think he’s safe. But one thing that’s essential is that he has to look like he’s fighting. Otherwise Baker could sneak in.
<
p>
It might be a good exercise to run Patrick’s ’06 numbers by region against the crosstabs from the March Suffolk and June Rasmussen Polls. IMHO any structural advantage from the ’06 Primary and General was thrown away months ago, and Patrick alienated most of the Legislature before he even took his oath of office.
<
p>It’s not my sense that casino gambling is (in isolation) a make-or-break issue among the electorate, but cost-effective government is. In addition, if Citizens for Limiteed Taxation emerges from hibernation, all hell could break loose.
Look at where Deval really ran up his margin vs. O’Brien: http://www.massinc.org/index.p… I see MetroWest and Greater Worcester as being the areas that swung hardest from Romney in 2002 to Deval in 2006. Granted, this is percentage vs. raw vote margin (the latter being a much better metric) but it’s instructive. Consequently, whether Baker can put together a winning coalition will largely depend on his ability to win these voters back.
<
p>Re Worcester, Tim Murray will again be a great asset for Deval in this election.
<
p>Some of the commentators here talk about conservative Democrats and disaffected independents pealing off from Deval’s ticket because of Cahill. But I think this map shows that most of these voters were never with him to being with. The immediate north and south shores and the merrimack valley came in no stronger for Deval than for O’Brien. Cahill’s “base” of Norfolk County hacks and disaffected, older white ethnics probably voted for Mihos in 2006 or stayed home.
<
p>For Deval to win re-election, he needs to perform well again in the educated, high-income suburbs mostly west of Boston. Baker will have appeal there, and Deval needs to position himself as an agent of reform, distancing himself from the machine / career politicos and public employee unions.
At first, I was thinking “yeah but that’s marginal increase, and that doesn’t matter, votes do.” Then it occurred to me: those are the so-called “swing” voters. If Deval loses all of those voters, he loses a 2-way election, maybe a 3-way election. Those are the voters who he has to hold on to, at least some of ’em.
<
p>It would be interesting to see, relative to that map
* where union carmen/staties live
* where the casinos would likely end up
* where long-distance drivers live
* where Pike drivers live
* where MBTA riders live
<
p>Of course, subject to the caveat that those groups are limited only to those members who are likely voters, etc etc.
I would love to have a map with the change in raw vote margin of victory from 2002 to 2006. Similar to how the NY Times had circles for vote margins. A huge swing in % of a town with 500 people doesn’t mean much (and describes a lot of the dark green in far western mass). But those metrowest towns are decent size for the most part, and certainly represent a sizeable collective total. I would also say this is where most Pike drivers live.
<
p>The Carmen and staties largely live in Cahill’s base in Quincy and its environs. To which, I say, fuck em; they never voted for us anyway.
Also include Quincy. And re:Worcester, can you imagine Guy Glodis helping out Tim Cahill, loudly or quietly?
If “disaffected, older white ethnics,” “Norfolk County hacks” and “Mihos voters” (27% there) doesn’t define Quincy, then I don’t know what does đŸ˜‰
Even with Cahill in the race I suspect a tough time for Patrick for several reasons yet to be discussed here.
<
p>1) GOP has a primary
<
p>This will turn out to be a good thing. Much like Clinton v Obama in the Spring of 08′ killed McCain’s free media, the same thing will happen in 10′ between Baker and Mihos. Plus more independents will vote in this election than in the non-competitive Dem primary, I think it was a big mistake that Cahill choose to run outside of the primary and its a mistake that ironically could hurt Deval as well (his base of supporters would have shown up, raised money, done anything to beat Cahill on that ballot, as an indy he’ll just get ignored)
<
p>2) Institutional Support for Cahill
<
p>I suspect the Baddour’s and other Hackish DINOs might support Cahill giving him institutional credibility. Also I suspect Haynes’ boys in the Mass AFL-CIO might swing to Cahill, or threaten that, to get Deval to back down on reforms, which leads me to my third point
<
p>3) Deval has an unstable coalition
<
p>To keep all of his existing supporters happy Deval will have to tramp down his efforts to get substantial reforms passed to keep the public service unions and the legislators happy, especially with Cahill in the race, thus he will need to appease so many factions to be even viable in the race that he will likely make Baker look like a more credibly reformer with less masters to appeal to general electorate and independents
<
p>4) Donations
<
p>I suspect that Republicans will be a lot more willing to donate to races they think they can win and this race will attract national Republicans, the chance to unseat an ally and personal friend of the President and elect the future leaders of the party. Coming off the heels of what Z predict will be wins in NJ and VA, the GOP money apparatus will poor more money into Governors races than the hopeless congressional, senatorial, or 12′ presidential races. Its their best chance to rebuild.
<
p>Conversely lefty-Dems will be preparing to give their money to the Obama camp since thats where the real power is and since thats where the action is, I don’t see Deval getting a ton of money from the usual lefty suspects since they will be gearing up for Obama.
<
p>5) Dems for Cahill
<
p>A lot of people I know personally, my father for example, are ABD and would never vote for a Republican. Their only exposure to Cahill are the positive Tim for Treasurer ads that convince them he is a ‘good guy’. Thus they will vote for him this time instead of holding their noses against the GOP. So in effect, I think Cahill could actually siphon off more votes from Deval than Baker. His base is disaffected Dems like him, true independents are inclined to outsiders and reformers. That was Deval last election while Healy was the incumbent running a defensive campaign. This time the GOP is running as the outsider reformers and Deval is on the defensive. I suspect the GOP and indys break for Baker, and the Dems could be split between Cahill and Baker. Also Cahill could go after Deval hard with negative ads allowing Baker to stay above the fray.
<
p>6) Even if he wins he loses
<
p>Deval can only hope that Cahill and Baker/Mihos split his opposition evenly to win a plurality to still govern. But he will have had to kiss so much ass in the legislature and public sector that to muster the institutional support he’ll need to win that I doubt he will be able to govern effectively as a lame duck.
<
p>In any case this should be the most exciting governors race in my lifetime and as an undecided voter this time around I look forward to seeing what comes forth from the candidates.
… I read this post and noted that, throughout, you gave the benefit of the institutional doubt, in every instance, to Cahill who is, it must be stated, casting himself adrift from the moorings of any and all institutions by refusing to run in a primary and against the Democrats in the general.
<
p>Frankly, that makes zero sense.
<
p>And DP has an unstable coalition because the underlying dynamics are so unstable… Which is just another way of saying nobody has a stable coalition. (excepting of course the dozen or so Republicans who think Obama is a socialist and Sarah Palin is fer real: they’ll never abandon each other…). Even should you discount the abysmally bad economy (which may be about to get worse) the political landscape, by itself, is building up tension and setting of temblors. Cahills cheap stunts don’t help. But the really important thing is what’s going to happen in the Lege: I doubt that neither DeLeo nor Murray will be in office by 2010 and how and when they leave will have a huge impact on Devals chances.
<
p>If DeLeo leaves under an ethics cloud, indeed if he leaves under anything but the clearest of blue skies, that’ll be the FOURTH Speaker in a row to go down by way of the shady K . Fuggedabowdit… in that instance, Devals hard-nosed opposition to the Lege looks really good and buys him a free ticket to another four years. In addition, I don’t think it’s going to be so smooth a transition for whomever is the next speaker. In fact, I think it’s going to be chaos. From where I sit, it looks likely. Especially with DeLeo having to walk the tightrope of the new ethics reform he first attempted to water down and then (reluctantly) championed (at the 13th hour). One misstep is all it’s gonna take. And it doesn’t have to be DeLeo directly, one of his lieutenants in a scandal, or even some misbehaving backbencher in his coalition is going to be very problematic for him…
<
p>And because DP actually cares about the processes of governing, there’s going to be continued application of pressure from the corner office.
<
p>To be completely honest with you, I don’t think either DeLeo or Murray can do it… They’ve been in the Lege since ’91 and ’93, respectively, and indolent corruption appears to be the only modus in their operandi: DeLeo voted and worked for the last three miscreants to hold the speakership and worked directly and diligently as a lieutenant for the third, holding Sal’s coat and not at all looking the other way as DiMasi enriched himself. It doesn’t seem likely that he could rise so high in a corrupt organization without a tincture of corruption himself. Not only has he yet to apologize for this, he has yet to even acknowledge the problems. Hmm… I’m fairly certain he wouldn’t know the straight and narrow if if John Paul II came back to hand drew him a map. And something like that will only lead to more calls for more ethics reform… maybe real reform with bite this time… As long as Deval stays on top of it… and isn’t dogged by ethics scandals of his own, he’ll be fine.
<
p>Murray just walks around with a perpetual air of disgust at the distinct lack of genuflection… I’m fairly certain this’ll cause her to pop some gasket or other sooner or later, just like Kerry Healey.
<
p>
<
p>Her near-endorsement of Charlie Baker, or “ka-ching,” didn’t count? Her staff has got to be more careful about how she’s exposed. She’s not making herself look good, or even responsible.
<
p>BTW – you were 1 pt off from a six. I feel you went too far on DeLeo. Of course, we all fear there could be corruption scandals coming, esp. with his position on ways and means whilst all the cognos stuff came up, but the fact of the matter is there’s no evidence yet, creating a huge leap to make those kinds of assumptions.
I love that DevalWorld is constantly attacking Murray’s character, and the next day whines about how she’s not being nice enough to the governor.
<
p>I’m failing to see either a distinction or a difference…. It’s axiomatic that someone of low character wouldn’t play nice. So it follows that if I attack her character I’m, de facto, saying that she’s not nice enough to the governor. She’s not nice and she is of low character. What is your point?
Both party rules and peer pressure tend to keep office-holders with Ds after their names from supporting anyone other than the Democratic nominee. If Cahill were to challenge Patrick in the primary, this point would have more validity.
The Patriot Ledger did a killer series on the state of group homes in 2004. Think I’m wrong about the service providers? Think ANYTHING has changed in the last five years?
<
p>Nope…nothing. Read the series and then come back and tell me I’m wrong. Med errors. Deaths. Undertrained staff. Med errors. Read it and weep.
<
p>http://www.southofboston.net/s…