TIME Bizarre

The Time Valentine’s Day Was 96 Hours Long

A heart is painted in the snow on a tabl
Jochen Luebke—AFP/Getty Images A heart is painted in the snow on a table of a sidewalk cafe in Berlin on another snowy Valentine's Day, in 2005

Thanks to one romantic governor

Valentine’s Day of 1978 shouldn’t have been a particularly special one — in fact, for a while it looked like it might end up being one of the worst in history.

That year, early February brought with it the legendary Blizzard of ’78 to Massachusetts. It was, quite literally, a perfect storm: certain meteorological conditions combined to keep the storm off the Atlantic coast for a few days, where it built up force. When it hit, around February 5 of that year, thousands were stranded or worse, having been unprepared for the magnitude of the blizzard. The storm continued for days. Dozens of inches of snow were recorded, along with flooding and high winds.

Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis declared three days of official holiday, to keep people off the road — and, about a week later, he made a similar declaration. Though the storm had finally passed, Valentine’s Day was still disrupted, at great cost to the hearts and wallets of the state — so he decided to act. As TIME reported on the Feb. 27, 1978, issue:

Valentine’s Day was different this year in Massachusetts: it was 96 hours long. The extension was due to Governor Michael Dukakis, who realized that the recent blizzard had left ardent suitors trapped in several feet of snow. Worse, merchants estimated that they would lose $10 million worth of sales of candy, flowers and greeting cards. So Dukakis extended the Tuesday holiday to Friday, for “spiritual as well as economic reasons.” To fulfill the spirit of the thing, he sent Valentine messages to his wife Kitty all week long.

Those four days of Valentine’s celebration are unlikely to be repeated any time soon — but there’s always a chance: Boston’s forecast for Saturday shows a chance of snow.

Read more about love, with TIME’s 2008 cover story about the science of romance, here in the TIME Vault: Why We Need Love to Survive

TIME

Six Feet Under: Buried in Snow in Boston

More than two feet of snow covered parts of New England on Monday in the region's third snow storm in one month, crippling Boston's transit system

TIME real estate

These Are the Best States to Grow Old In

senior-couple-holding-hands
Getty Images

The list considered income, health, labor, and environmental indicators to rank Utah at the top

This post is in partnership with 24/7 Wall Street. The article below was originally published on 247WallSt.com.

The U.S. elderly population is growing rapidly. The number of Americans 65 and older grew from 35 million in 2000 to 41.4 million in 2011 and to an estimated 44.7 million in 2013. This trend is expected to continue as members of the baby boomer generation reach retirement age.

While it can be difficult to grow old in some U.S. states, life for seniors is often far worse in many other countries. Still, the United States will face increasingly large challenges. In the coming years, state officials, families, and individuals will need to pay more attention to the needs of the elderly — to improve medical care, access to services, infrastructure, or other amenities increasingly necessary late in life.

HelpAge International evaluates each year the social and economic well-being of elderly country residents in its Global AgeWatch Index. Last year, the United States was among the better places to grow old in the world, at eighth place. However, domestically, each state offers a very different quality of life for its older residents. Based on an independent analysis by 24/7 Wall St., which incorporated a range of income, health, labor, and environmental indicators, Utah is the best state in which to grow old, while Mississippi is the worst.

To be considered among the best states to grow old, senior citizens in the states had to have relatively strong income security, as measured by several indicators. While the national median income among families with a head of household 65 and older was $37,847 in 2013, comparable incomes in eight of the best states to grow old, for example, exceeded $40,000 in 2013. A typical elderly household in Hawaii led the nation in 2013 with a median income of $55,650.

Retirees often have fixed income, as they begin to tap into their savings and collect social security. Kate Bunting, CEO of AgeWatch USA, explained that, “It is really important for older people to have reliable access to a guaranteed income.” More than 90% of Americans 65 and older in the vast majority of all states received social security income in 2013. The average monthly social security benefit of $1,294, however, was likely not enough for many seniors.

As a result, many older Americans relied on non-social security income, such as withdrawals from 401Ks and savings as a supplement. In 2013, 47.9% of Americans 65 and older had such supplemental retirement incomes. More than 50% of older residents in four of the best states to grow old had such incomes. At stake, according to Bunting, is the elderly’s “ability to eat nutritious foods, which impacts their health, and their ability to access other critical services.”

With lower, and often fixed, incomes, elderly Americans are vulnerable financially. In addition, age often brings a host of health problems, causing greater reliance on medical and accessibility services. To determine how the states fare when it comes to health care, we examined health services and outcomes. In the best states, life expectancy was relatively high. In eight of the 10 states, it was at least 80 years.

A good education, which can lead to employment opportunities and higher incomes, is also an indication of well-being. While less than one-quarter of Americans 65 and older had at least a bachelor’s degree as of 2013, at least 28% of seniors in seven of the best states had attained such a level of education. More than 34% of Colorado’s elderly population were college-educated as of 2013, the highest rate nationwide.

As older people tend to be more vulnerable to criminals, the best states to grow old also needed to be relatively safe. In all of the 10 states, the violent crime in 2013 was less than 300 incidents per 100,000 people, all among the lower rates reviewed.

In addition, policies often shape the quality of life for a state’s elderly population. Smart Growth America rated state-level infrastructure policies and their effectiveness in serving all residents, including the elderly. While many states had not passed any such policies, a majority of the best states to grow old had done so in recent years. Bunting suggested that as the aging population grows, it will become increasingly “important that you have the right kinds of policies in place that help support a quality old age.” Adapting to these demographic patterns through age-friendly policy, Bunting continued, is “important and worthwhile to do, no matter what age you are.”

These are the best states to grow old.

10. Massachusetts
> Median household income (65+): $40,020 (15th highest)
> Pct. with a disability (65+): 34.1% (10th lowest)
> Pct. with a bachelor’s degree or higher (65+): 29.2% (7th highest)
> Violent crime rate: 404.0 per 100,000 residents (16th highest)

Based on income, health, labor, and environmental indicators, Massachusetts is the 10th best state to grow old. In particular, Massachusetts’ elderly population has the benefit of an exceptionally strong health care system. In a state where the vast majority of residents were insured in 2013, less than 0.5% of elderly residents aged 65 and over were not, among the lowest rate in the country. Older Massachusetts residents are also relatively well educated. Nearly 30% had at least a bachelor’s degree as of 2013, one of the higher rates. Also, as in a majority of the best states to grow old, Massachusetts’ policies are rated favorably for considering the needs of seniors and other groups that require more services. In particular, state officials introduced a directive that would require all public transportation land use plans to include features necessary to offer greater access for people of all capabilities.

9. Washington
> Median household income (65+): $42,287 (12th highest)
> Pct. with a disability (65+): 37.4% (17th highest)
> Pct. with a bachelor’s degree or higher (65+): 29.8% (5th highest)
> Violent crime rate: 277.9 per 100,000 residents (21st lowest)

Less than 48% of America’s population 65 and older had some form of retirement income, excluding social security benefits. In Washington, nearly 53% of elderly residents had retirement incomes to supplement their social security benefits, one of the highest proportions among all states. In addition to relatively strong income security, seniors living in Washington rated their accessibility to services an 8.9 out of 10, better than how seniors rated their access in all other states. Older Washington residents were also well-educated compared to their peers in other states. Nearly 30% of people 65 and older in Washington had at least a bachelor’s degree as of 2013, one of the highest rates in the country.

8. Connecticut
> Median household income (65+): $44,240 (7th highest)
> Pct. with a disability (65+): 32.1% (2nd lowest)
> Pct. with a bachelor’s degree or higher (65+): 28.3% (11th highest)
> Violent crime rate: 254.5 per 100,000 residents (15th lowest)

Connecticut residents were expected to live nearly 81 years in 2011, the third highest life expectancy in the country. Just 32.1% of older Connecticut residents had a disability as of 2013, nearly the lowest rate. Physical health among older residents likely contributed to longer lives. According to a recent OECD study, Connecticut residents rated their general health a 7.8 out of 10. Also, the median household income among Connecticut elderly residents was more than $44,000, well above the national median of $37,847 in that age group. While the relationship between income and health is hotly debated by experts, high incomes likely allow older residents greater access to services.

For the rest of the list, please go to 24/7WallStreet.com.

TIME elizabeth warren

Elizabeth Warren Goes to Bat for Medical Device Industry

Elizabeth Warren
J. Scott Applewhite—AP Sen. Elizabeth Warren is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 8, 2015.

The populist Senator backs regulatory changes, tax credits and more government funding for home state heavyweights.

Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic star who just last week unveiled a bill targeting the profits of large drug makers, doesn’t sound like much of a populist when it comes to another group of big health care corporations, the medical device manufacturers, many of which happen to be headquartered in the Senator’s home state of Massachusetts. Warren’s coziness with those companies is now earning her criticism within her party, with one former Democratic Senate staffer describing some of her positions as “repulsive.”

Warren took to the floor of the Senate on Jan. 29 to unveil a bill she said would act as a kind of multi-million dollar “swear jar” for pharmaceutical companies that break the law, penalizing them when they get caught and using the funds to supplement scientific research. With the folksy delivery that has made her a favorite of progressives across the country, she said that powerful, moneyed lobbyists had opposed the bill, but that her message to them and their big business bosses was, “If they don’t want to put a dollar in the swear jar, then stop swearing.”

What Warren didn’t say was that her bill has a loophole in it for medical device manufacturers. Those companies, which make everything from latex gloves to Magnetic Resonance Imaging machines, would be exempt from her proposed penalties unless they also make drugs. At the same time, her bill explicitly ensures that the so-called “medtech” companies would benefit from the research dollars that her “swear jar” would generate.

Warren is widely seen as the defender of everyday Americans against the scourge of business interests that she says manipulate Washington, rig regulation and fuel corporate welfare. But when it comes to the medical device industry, she sings a different tune, albeit quietly. Since she launched her campaign for the Senate in 2011, Warren has come out in favor several medical device industry priorities, including rewriting Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, bolstering federal research funding and making permanent certain temporary tax credits for research and development.

Most visibly, she wants to repeal the medical device taxes that help fund President Barack Obama’s signature health reform, the Affordable Care Act. That position has brought her into a surprising, if temporary, alliance on the issue with the new Republican leaders of Congress, who see repeal of the medical device tax as their most likely legislative vehicle to chip away at Obamacare.

All these pro-business positions have not gone unnoticed. “We’ve enjoyed the opportunity to work with Sen. Warren during her tenure in Congress,” says JC Scott, the head of government affairs for the medical device industry’s top lobbyist, AdvaMed. Scott says Warren “certainly has been engaged with a focus on improving the regulatory efficiency” at the Food and Drug Administration, which approves and regulates medical devices, thanks to her position on the agency’s Congressional oversight authority, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee.

In many ways there is nothing extraordinary in Warren’s positions: they are the work of an elected representative ensuring the interests of her constituents. Medical devices are big business in Massachusetts. In 2010, the latest date for which numbers are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, medical device companies claimed responsibility for more than 23,000 jobs in Massachusetts, 13% of its export economy and $17.6 billion worth of the state’s economy. Warren also represents major academic research institutions that are primary beneficiaries of programs that also benefit the medical device industry. “This is a very powerful industry,” says Paul Thacker, a former medical device and pharmaceutical investigator for the Republican staff of the Senate Finance committee, “And she’s looking out for jobs in her home state.”

Warren first enunciated her medtech positions during her close race against then-incumbent Senator Scott Brown in 2012. For the campaign, Brown received $170,650 from the medical device industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, while Warren didn’t break the top 20 recipients for industry campaign contributions, receiving only $16,550. In late March 2012, Brown attacked Warren for her support of Obama’s Affordable Care Act, saying it would hurt the medtech industry in Massachusetts.

Two weeks later, Warren published an editorial in an industry newsletter broadly supporting medtech’s policy agenda. Among the positions she espoused were changing FDA regulations to speed approval of medical devices, advancing Congressional research funding for medical devices, making permanent federal tax credits for research and development, and repealing the medical device tax in Obamacare. Warren ended up winning by 8 percentage points, or more than 200,000 votes, in a race that cost both sides more than $77 million.

Warren’s record supporting the medical device industry, which had $336 billion in domestic revenues in 2013, contrasts with her criticism of other industries. On a section of her website devoted to “leveling the playing field” she says, “The most profitable corporations should have to pay their fair share.” The Obamacare medical device tax that she wants to repeal will cost the industry $29 billion over ten years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. In a hearing this year on a Republican bill that she said would have lowered the cost of Obamacare on businesses, Warren said, “I’m against adding $53 billion to the deficit so that corporations can push their costs and responsibilities onto the government.”

Warren’s position on the repeal of the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act draws particular ire from those who fought to pass it into law. Unlike the pharmaceutical and hospital industries, the medical device industry refused to negotiate directly with the bill’s authors over how much of the cost of Obamacare the device makers would bear, say Senate aides familiar with the negotiations. The medical device tax that was ultimately included in the 2010 bill was the result of intense negotiations between its authors and Democratic senators supporting the industry. “The idea that Elizabeth Warren thinks that one industry should get a sweetheart deal from paying their fair share for providing healthcare to poor Americans is repulsive,” says one former Democratic Senate staffer involved in the negotiations.

The Medical Innovation Act [pdf] Warren proposed last week is also a study in contrasts. Big pharma companies have repeatedly been subject to legal action by the Justice Department, but so too have some medical device manufacturers. One of the biggest device makers, the Minnesota-based Medtronic, paid $23.5 million in Dec. 2011, and $9.9 million in May 2014 to resolve alleged violations of the False Claims Act. It was also the subject of a 2012 Senate Finance Committee investigation into alleged manipulation of studies into its products.

Warren and her staffers declined to comment on her bill or her positions on medical device regulation, oversight and funding, but her office confirmed that she still holds the positions she took in the 2012 op-ed. Warren’s defenders say she believes the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act impedes innovation and should be replaced with another source of revenue. They say her positions on the medical device industry are in line with her broader approach to funding research and development and simplifying regulation. They argue that her bill shields small companies, not medical device makers, by targeting only those companies that make blockbuster drugs that received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Her defenders also point out that some big drug makers are also medical device makers, and so could be subject to the penalties.

Warren is realistic about the slim chances her Medical Innovation Act has to pass. “I don’t kid myself,” she said as she presented the bill last week, “A handful of actors with money and power like things just the way they are.” Warren will get a chance to help change things starting next week, though, as the GOP-led HELP committee begins rewriting the regulations and funding mechanisms for both the FDA and the NIH. At stake are the rules controlling how closely the FDA oversees the approval of new medical devices and how much funding the industry gets from government. The House is already moving legislation. “We’re really excited in the House and Senate to move forward with legislation to address regulatory challenges,” says AdvaMed’s JC Scott.

TIME tragedy

Massachusetts Police Officer Runs Over and Kills College Student Lying in Road

Garrett Gagne, a 22-year-old senior and student athlete, was on Cape Cod to celebrate New Year's Eve

A Massachusetts police officer accidentally killed a college student in Chatham, Cape Cod, on Thursday, running over him as he lay in the road while responding to an emergency call.

Police said it is not known why Garrett Gagne was lying prone in the street at 4 a.m. or what his condition was at that point, the Associated Press reported.

Gagne, 22, a senior and student athlete at New York’s St. Lawrence University, was reportedly in Chatham to celebrate New Year’s Eve with his friends.

The officer, who has yet to be identified, immediately called for help on realizing he had hit Gagne, authorities said.

[AP]

TIME Crime

How an Abortion-Clinic Shooting Led to a ‘Wrongful Life’ Lawsuit

John C. Salvi, 3rd (R)
AFP/Getty Images John C. Salvi, 3rd (R) speaks with his lawyer J. W. Carney during the Brookline District Court hearing where Salvi pleaded innocent to murder charges, in Brookline, Mass.

Dec. 30, 1994: John Salvi goes on a shooting rampage at two Massachusetts abortion clinics, killing two people and wounding five others

At a time when antiabortion violence had become disconcertingly common, John Salvi put a grim face on the epidemic. On this day 20 years ago — Dec. 30, 1994 — the 22-year-old New Hampshire hairdresser who’d plastered a picture of a fetus on his pickup truck walked into a Brookline, Mass., Planned Parenthood clinic and sprayed the waiting room with gunfire. Then he did it again, at another abortion clinic two miles away.

A beauty school classmate described Salvi in the way we often hear people described after they commit mass violence: quiet, emotionless, off. But a week before the shootings, something triggered his rage, according to his boss at the Eccentric Beauty Salon, where he worked as a trainee: not a debate over reproductive rights, but being told he wasn’t ready to cut a client’s hair.

The day after the Brookline shootings, Salvi was arrested when he opened fire at a clinic in Norfolk, Va. In total, he killed two people, wounded five and terrified abortion providers and their patients across the country.

Among the terrified was a woman named Deborah Gaines, who had been awaiting her appointment in one of the Brookline clinics when Salvi started shooting. He killed the receptionist and shot a patient administrator, then chased Gaines and others who fled the building, firing as he followed. Gaines escaped with her life — but so did her unborn daughter.

Gaines was so distraught after the shooting that she couldn’t bring herself to return for another appointment, according to the Washington Post‘s DeNeen L. Brown, and she ultimately carried the baby to term. She later sued the clinic for between $100,000 and $500,000 to help raise the child in a controversial “wrongful life” case, which was settled out of court. Her attorney argued that the clinic should have had tighter security measures in place, given the increasing outbreaks of violence against abortion providers. Since they hadn’t, he said, Gaines had been denied her right to terminate her pregnancy.

Meanwhile, some in the pro-life community argued that the birth of Gaines’ daughter was the silver lining to the tragedy. A handful even argued that Salvi, who committed suicide in prison in 1996 while serving two consecutive life terms, could be considered a hero for ensuring that the child was born.

But Gaines, a single mother who had three other children and was receiving public assistance when she made the abortion appointment, didn’t see it that way, according to Brown.

“I know ignorant people out there are going to say if it weren’t for John Salvi, this baby wouldn’t be here,” Gaines told the Post reporter. “But this does not make him a hero.”

Read TIME’s original coverage of the shootings, here in the archives: An Armed Fanatic Raises the Stakes

TIME faith

The Surprising First Fighters in the War on Christmas

Dec. 25, 1659: Puritan settlers eschew Christmas celebrations, which are illegal in the colonies from 1659 to 1681

In recent years, conservative pundits have squared off against the assailants they blame for waging war on Christmas: politically-correct liberals and the godless Grinches at the ACLU. But the anti-Christmas spirit has far deeper roots, reaching all the way back to America’s fun-hating settlers, the Puritans.

On Christmas Day in 1659, the nation’s pious progenitors were actively not celebrating the holiday, which was banned in the colonies that year and not legalized again until 1681. Arguing that Christmas had become merely an excuse for caroling and carousing, they turned holiday merry-making into a crime punishable by a five-shilling fine.

Although the Puritans had an ax to grind against all the traditional Christian holidays — since the Bible only specifically sanctioned the Sabbath — they reserved an extra dose of contempt for Christmas, according to Bruce Daniels, the author of Puritans at Play. He writes:

“Foolstide,” as they called December 25, aroused their special ire for a variety of reasons. In addition to the fact that no holy days were sanctioned by Scripture, Puritans hated Christmas because it was an immensely popular holiday in both England and Europe and was almost always the occasion for excessive behavior. Cotton Mather argued that during the “Saturnalian jollities” of late December, “men dishonoured the Lord Jesus Christ more in the twelve days of Christmas” than in all the twelve months of the preceding year.

In 1620, their first year in the New World, the Pilgrims spent the holiday working in the fields — a “contemptuous way of showing that Christmas meant nothing,” according to Daniels.

The next year, when some non-Pilgrim sailors found themselves in the Plymouth Colony and attempted a small holiday celebration, they were chastised by Governor William Bradford in a manner that could only be described as puritanical. “Your conscience may not let you work on Christmas,” he said, as Daniels retells it, “but my conscience cannot let you play while everybody else is out working.”

Even after it became legal to celebrate Christmas again, many colonists maintained their hard line against garland-hanging and gift-giving, particularly in Massachusetts, where businesses stayed open and public schools were in session on Christmas Day for nearly two more centuries — until Christmas was declared a federal holiday in 1870.

Outside this Puritan stronghold, however, Christmas cheer began to infiltrate colonial culture. A poem published in the 1765 Virginia Almanac festively announced:

Christmas is come, hang on the pot,
Let spits turn round, and ovens be hot;
Beef, pork, and poultry, now provide
To feast thy neighbors at this tide;
Then wash all down with good wine and beer,
And so with mirth conclude the Year.

In Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin summed up the Christmas spirit more succinctly for the 1739 edition of Poor Richard’s Almanac: “O blessed Season! Lov’d by Saints and Sinners/ For long Devotions, or for longer Dinners.”

Read more on Time.com: A Brief History of The War on Christmas

TIME Election 2014

Meet the Republican Who Might Run Massachusetts

Charlie Baker
Steven Senne—AP Charlie Baker after a debate with Democratic candidate Martha Coakley in Boston on Oct. 21, 2014.

Charlie Baker has made it a tight race by courting Democrats

Politicians abhor dead silence. But for 31 seconds, Charlie Baker sat on a debate stage, staring at the ceiling, and wracking his brain for the answer to the thorniest question he’s fielded since he jumped into the race for Massachusetts governor last year. The question: Name a current politician who’s a role model for you. “Um… um…. You know, you’re kind of stumping me here,” Baker said. After 31 seconds of stammering and silence, he finally ventured, “Um, how about Jeb Bush?”

Baker has been locked in a tight race for governor of Massachusetts for months. Recent polls have shown him leading his Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Martha Coakley, by as little as a single point. Still, the most uncomfortable Baker has been all campaign hasn’t been in the final, frenetic dash toward Election Day, but in that primary campaign debate in late August, when he was forced to identify himself with another Republican.

That’s because Baker is a throwback to a kind of Republican politics that no longer exists at any meaningful scale. It’s what has the former health insurance company CEO within reach of the State House in Boston. But it’s also what makes the final step so difficult to pull off.

Baker is running without much company. The only other Republican in Massachusetts with a shot at major office is Richard Tisei, a former state legislator, and Baker’s 2010 running mate, who’s in a tight race for Congress in the suburbs north of Boston. “I think running as a moderate anything is more complicated than it used to be. That’s the nature of our politics these days,” Baker says. “I think having a different set of viewpoints within the Republican party in New England, and nationally, is a good thing, not a bad thing.”

Democrats dominate Massachusetts politics. The state Republican Party claims less than 11% of all registered voters. Massachusetts hasn’t sent a Republican to the U.S. House of Representatives since 1994. The outgoing governor, Deval Patrick, stormed into office on a campaign that political strategist David Axelrod used to test-drive the themes that took Barack Obama to the White House in 2008. The state flirted briefly with Scott Brown, then turned on him so violently that he fled across the border, to New Hampshire. In Brown’s place, Massachusetts voters installed Senator Elizabeth Warren, a populist who’s pulling the entire Democratic party leftward.

Yet Massachusetts voters have a history of electing a certain kind of Republican to lead the state. The last two Democratic governors are Patrick and Michael Dukakis; between the two of them lies a 16-year stretch of Republican rule. The problem for Baker is that moderate New England Republicans have almost vanished as a political force.

Baker, 57, has long been the state GOP’s brightest star. He rose to political prominence two decades ago in the cabinet of then-Governor Bill Weld. Weld was a Republican who rode a tax revolt into office, but he was so far to the left on social issues that he won in liberal enclaves like Cambridge and Amherst. Baker’s politics echo Weld’s. As health secretary and then budget chief for Weld and his successor, Paul Cellucci, Baker earned a reputation as a sharp policy mind and number cruncher, but was not known as an ideologue.

“He’s the smartest guy in the room, but he doesn’t act like it,” says Jay Ash, the city manager of Chelsea, a small, heavily Central American community just north of Boston. “He’s inquisitive, and he doesn’t dismiss people’s views. He’s open and engaging on the issues.”

“I worked in an administration that was pretty successful in working across the aisle to get stuff done with Democrats,” Baker says. “A lot of our successes were because we had two teams on the field, competition and political engagement. Whether voters decide that’s what they want or not is going to be up to them. I certainly wanted to run a race built on that kind of message and approach.”

Ash and Baker met in the early 1990’s, when Chelsea was operating in state fiscal receivership. They’ve been friends since, yet Baker didn’t get Ash’s vote four years ago, when Baker made his first run for governor. Baker’s 2010 campaign was filled with stunts meant to generate voter outrage, like displaying a prop welfare card that said it could be swiped for booze and lottery tickets at taxpayer expense. The disgruntled turnout wasn’t enough and Baker lost to Patrick with 42% of the vote.

The Massachusetts governor’s race is a redemption run for both Baker and Coakley. Coakley lost the 2010 contest for Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat to Brown in spectacular fashion, and reporters are salivating over storylines about Coakley blowing another high-profile race against another Massachusetts Republican. Coakley has been a popular attorney general, though, and she’s run hard for governor. Their race is neck-and-neck less because Coakley has done something wrong, than because Baker has done a whole lot right.

Baker has managed to run for political office while mostly taking divisive politics off the table. He has beaten the drum on a few red meat Republican issues, like lowering taxes and hardening work rules for welfare. But the bulk of his campaign has been focused on education and economic opportunity, and in these areas, he’s driving a debate that’s less about political vision than it is about competence in managing government. He’s bent the race to his strengths, and made the contest a referendum on putting a policy wonk in the governor’s office.

Baker has also gone to lengths to play up his social liberalism, releasing campaign videos with his brother, who’s gay and married, and with his teenage daughter, who assures him on-camera, “You’re totally pro-choice and bipartisan.”

“Ideologically, he’s where the majority of people in Massachusetts are,” says Larry DiCara, a prominent Democratic attorney in Boston.

“In some states, he’d be a Democrat,” says Ash, who praises his friend’s current run. “He’s with Democrats and independents on social issues.”

Baker is also with Democrats in a more literal sense. On the trail, he has taken the fight to Coakley in the urban centers that normally hand Democrats lopsided vote margins. Baker is trying to raid the Democratic base, aggressively courting votes in Irish pubs and mill towns. He’s held over 150 campaign events in Boston — an unheard-of presence in a city where voters normally hang 40-plus-point losses on Republicans. Baker lost the city by 47 points in 2010; a recent WBUR poll had him cutting that deficit in half.

“You have to make the sale, but you can’t make the sale if you don’t show up,” Baker reasons.

And as he tries to close the deal, he’s doing it without much support from state Republicans. Massachusetts Democrats enjoy an enormous campaign volunteer base, the machinery of organized labor, and star power in Washington, DC. As the campaign entered the home stretch, Michelle Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden all swung through to rally the party faithful for Coakley. Weld, who’s now working as a rainmaker at a Boston law firm, is the closest thing Baker has had to a star campaign surrogate.

Baker’s party doesn’t have the bodies to compete with Democrats on the grassroots level. (His campaign has knocked on 270,000 doors this election cycle, a huge number for a Massachusetts Republican; Elizabeth Warren’s campaign hit 240,000 doors in a single weekend two years ago.) But he has received one major outside boost: the Republican Governors Association PAC has spent more than $12 million on the race, over two-and-half times what they spent on the 2010 campaign and more than the combined spending of Baker and Coakley’s own campaigns.

But national Republicans will be hard-pressed to find broader lessons. If Baker wins, it will be because he won over Democratic voters and narrowed the daylight between his partisans, and Coakley’s. That isn’t a formula that has legs far outside Boston.

TIME People

Former Boston Mayor Thomas Menino Dies at 71

Boston mayor Thomas M. Menino
W. Marc Bernsau—Boston Business Journal Boston mayor Thomas M. Menino

Menino was the city's longest-serving mayor, who led for more than two decades

Thomas M. Menino, the beloved former mayor of Boston who led the city for more than two decades, died Thursday. He was 71, and his passing was confirmed in a statement on his Facebook page.

Menino, who served five terms in office to become the city’s longest-serving mayor, was diagnosed with advanced-stage cancer soon after stepping down earlier this year. Last week, Menino announced that he would stop chemotherapy treatment — and suspend a tour to promote his book Mayor for a New America — to spend more time with his family and friends.

“At just after 9:00am this morning the Honorable Thomas M. Menino passed into eternal rest after a courageous battle with cancer,” the statement said. “He was surrounded by his devoted wife Angela, loving family and friends. Mayor Menino, the longest serving Mayor of the City of Boston, led our city through a transformation of neighborhood resurgence and historic growth — leaving the job he loved, serving the city and people he loved this past January. We ask that you respect the families’ privacy during this time and arrangements for services will be announced soon.”

Menino is credited with overseeing the ascent of Boston’s skyline and leading the city through economic downturns to become a hub for business and technology. The city’s first mayor of Italian descent, according to the Boston Globe, Menino’s old-school political style won him the support of the city, leaving office with an approval rating of nearly 80%. A 2008 Globe poll found that more than half of the Boston respondents said they had met him personally.

Read TIME’s 2013 profile of Menino here: The Last of the Big-City Bosses

TIME Crime

Child Rape Suspect Caught in New York

Gregory Lewis had been spotted in a handful of states since he fled Massachusetts in August

A Massachusetts man accused of raping a child who had been on the run since September was arrested late Tuesday in New York, authorities said.

Gregory Lewis, 26, was also wanted in several states in connection with a series of sexual assaults, kidnappings, and armed robberies, CNN reports. He’s accused of robbing, assaulting, and handcuffing several victims who he met online.

Lewis was arrested Tuesday after fleeing New York state troopers attempting to pull him over for driving with a missing license plate, authorities said. Lewis later crashed his car into a river. The suspect, who had been charged with four counts of felony child rape in August, fled Massachusets after cutting off his GPS-monitoring bracelet. Lewis had been seen in Charlotte, Denver, Portland, Boise, and Salt Lake City since he fled.

[CNN]

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser