All Democrats Should Embrace The Democratic Process
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
Why, you ask? Perhaps it is because Michelle Ku has been in the community for 16 years and advocating for everyone the entire time, and not merely a few months living in Newtown and playing politics. She has spent years actively seeking resolutions for shared problems, not merely living in Newtown. This election is clearly not a stepping stone in her life. Michelle Ku has established a record of advocacy for what works for the community, throughout her years in Newtown. I cannot speak about any alleged comment from some in her “camp” stating that they might vote for the ICE wardrobe admiring adversary to the democratic party, rather than vote for the newcomer, Brandon Moore. I will tell you that all Michelle Ku supporters have been told, by Michelle Ku and not gossip, including on posts on line, is that we should trust the process and not make this a distasteful caucus election. Anything, anyone says or does, that is anything less than dignified, is not from Michelle Ku. By the way, referring to them as “Ku” and “Moore” and the supporters as “camp”, sounds a bit “aggressive” and “divisive” to me, as an admirer of boxing. Therefore, it is ironic to call her supporters divisive. However, I love a good fight. I have a son who is an attorney, a Saltzman Intellectual Property Scholar, and a boxer, and I find a good fight to be a bit more graceful, though. Finally, I would like to say that caucuses cost someone something and it is usually those that are forced to step out to vote between two same party candidates, when the party can simply vouch for the worthiest of the candidates, do what the party is meant to do, and endorse a candidate with a solid track record, so all work to defeat the true adversary. When the unsuccessful candidate of that party decides that “he” is going to run on the third ticket, “he” splits the vote and almost guarantees that the ICE wardrobe loving opponent to the Democratic ticket, succeeds. Newcomers tend to split the vote and this newcomer seems to have guaranteed that if Michelle Ku is the Democratic nominee, and “he” is not, “he” is running on a third ticket. I think calling “surrogates” and “camps” divisive is disingenuous, at best. I take great pride in the fact that the opposing party itself has stated that Michelle Ku deserves better and that there are some unanswered issues concerning the newcomer. While Michelle Ku would not allow those issues to be exploited, I welcome the opposing party substantiating its claims about the veracity of Ms. Ku’s democratic party opponent. Maybe it is the lawyer in me. Maybe it is the fact that I have belonged to various parties during my 64 years of life. Maybe it is the community activist in me or the critic of political parties, due to my work behind the scenes of some great NYC elections, but I am paying close attention to who is really transparent in this race and so far, Michelle Ku, has restored my faith in a system that is pretty broken.
Hi Yolanda, you clearly are a supporter of Michelle Ku. I see that our letters about the recent decision by the Democratic Town Committee regarding how they/we will choose a nominee have been published on the same day.
Last week the DTC voted to have a Caucus (where all Newtown registered Dems in the 106 get to vote instead of a DTC meeting where only 55 dems get to vote) to help determine which Dem will run for the 106 seat against Mitch Bolinsky. Your letter indicates you prefer the DTC meeting (55 votes) while I prefer the Caucus where it is open to thousands of democrats in town. I prefer a Caucus vote for either Ku or Moore (by the way you’re limited to 300 words in a LTE so first names take up words so I don’t use them) for the reasons I stated in my letter above – more people get to vote, more people are engaged, more turnout in November.
About the divisiveness, there are many comments on social media before and since this decision by DTC that claim there should be no such contest these have been made by Ku supporters on her pages and they have in fact written what I mentioned above.
In politics “Surrogates” and “Camp”are commonly used shorthand for supporters of a particular candidate – I’ve never heard it used offensively so I never thought anyone would interpret using such terms as an attack.
I have seen nothing from the other campaign neither posts from the Candidate or his supporters, “surrogates”, or camp that make such negative comments and that’s the truth.
People can have their beliefs about the process – I believe primaries are good , you may not – but to try to say one candidate is “divisive” because they choose to run and provide us a choice and a chance to promote the party at the same time is not good for any of us – citizens should not just be allowed but should be encouraged to step up and run. I stand by what I said- for one candidate’s team to say that they are or their people are so mad that they’ll vote for the opposing party is divisive.
I thank you for the tone of your reply. I appreciate it. I too stand by my statement that, not the candidates, but the process and those pushing it, has become divisive. I also continue to take offense to some of the labels, such as “surrogate” and “camp”. I do not find them to be proper references for groups of people. I confidently add that the lack of primary in the Kamala Harris defeat was not due to the lack of a primary. I campaigned for Kamala and we can have a private discussion, if you like, at another time the defeat. I also completely disagree with the statement that primaries improve voter turnout. In Connecticut, primaries are met with low voter turnout and they are expensive to administer. This will not be any different but I respect your opinion and am open to discussion.