I agree with the lesser evil aspect i used to live in MA so i keep tabs on the politics down there but do consider this.
1. i think Baker would be a better executive than Deval or Cahill which has nothing to do with ideology.
2. in a redistricting year an R Governor (RINO or otherwise) would be far better than a former Dem Indie who would probably try to buy support for buddies by passing anything the Dem legislature throws on his desk. This year the state GOP MAY be able to get enough seats in the legislature to keep a Veto from being overridden. its a long shot but with an R Governor you at least have a chance of this scenario. with a former Dem turned Indie and a Dem you have ZERO chance of that happening
3. Cahill is an opportunist nothing more and i really was appalled before this whole Tea Party train took off how he basically kept saying he was still basically a Dem just couldnt stand Deval’s incompetence. Once he found a niche for himself by attaching himself to the tea party suddenly he is all about their “values” which i find highly dubious
But the overriding factor to me is Baker's involvement in RomneyCare which was a blueprint for ObamaCare. Baker cannot be rewarded for this. In fact, Baker getting defeated is another nail in Mitt's political coffin - a true ‘two-for-one’ deal.
Add in Baker's uber-liberalism and at least in this voter's opinion, he is not acceptable as a gubernatorial candidate or local dog catcher.
There aren’t enough Republicans in the legislature to make electing a GOP Governor feasible. The GOP is outnumbered 10-90%, and they would have to make staggering gains (which won’t happen) to reach the point where a GOP Governor would have enough members to sustain his veto. A GOP Governor will have ZERO impact on redistricting and much of anything else, except to continue to keep the party in the boneyard. Cahill is the only credible candidate.