To The Editor:

As a resident and a registered Democrat, I’m happy that we will have a “contested caucus” or “primary” between two democratic candidates before one challenges the Republican incumbent, Mitch Bolinsky, in a race to become our next State Representative in November.

This Republican has defeated opposing Democrats including Michelle Embree Ku (one of the current democratic candidates) in 5 of 6 past elections, (once running unopposed).

This year Ku is running again, competing against Brandon Moore for the Democratic nomination. Most experts agree that contests/primaries like this one are a critical part of the process for many reasons and Democrats need to look no further than Kamala Harris’s failed bid for President after skipping the primary process or perhaps look to Ku’s own failed campaign for State Representative in 2024 to see evidence of that claim.

In both cases, there was no primary, candidates were just handed the nomination. No debates, no forums. In both cases, both lost and by significant margin.

Primaries inform and engage the public. They encourage and increase voter participation and turnout — something Democrats desperately need. Skipping this step gives an obvious advantage to the incumbent, especially a six term incumbent.

So with this understanding, why are Ku’s surrogates and campaign managers taking to social media to decry the Primary process and label Brandon Moore as “divisive”? By entering the race, Moore has triggered the Primary process. Ku’s camp claims that this is divisive, and that Ku is entitled to the nomination. She “earned” it by being in local politics for 14 years.

Some in her camp write that they “are so mad we’d rather vote for Mitch” if Moore wins the nomination. Sounds like they, not Moore, are the “divisive” element in the local party.

Michele Assante

Newtown