Gambling’s role in capturing the Democratic party for big money has occasioned anguish among those who think of theirs as the party of the common man. Whom to back? The people who bankroll your party or the people your party claims to represent? The only one of the four leading candidates in the recent Massachusetts Democratic primary for governor to oppose casino gambling unequivocally was President Obama’s former Medicaid administrator Donald Berwick. Maybe that was naïve of him—as naïve as thinking that a recess appointment from an unpopular president could be the launching pad for a career in state politics. On the other hand, Democratic attorney general candidate Maura Healey ran the most successful primary campaign of the season by addressing casinos directly. She called casino gambling the state’s number-one consumer-protection issue. Standing in Springfield, where the mayor hopes slot machines will soon have the city’s underclass designing software and eating insalata caprese, she said, “When I see casino gambling, I see predatory lending, I see personal bankruptcies, addiction, prostitution, and organized crime.” She clobbered her closest rival, the former lieutenant governor nominee, Warren Tolman, by 24 points.