The primary season in Colorado has been a dud. First, there is no primary election. Second, the Republican decided back in August it wouldn’t even hold a presidential poll at its caucus. Third, the Democrats decision, though it will be based on a poll, is non-binding. So there’s really very little excitement for us come March 1. Come Super Tuesday, Politico Coloradoans will likely spend more attention on what’s happening nationwide.
But with the Colorado caucus just a little over a week (as if you didn’t know, bombarded as we have been with Bernie and Hillary ads) it’s time for some Election ’16 analysis.
From the Republican side, there’s been an overriding question: Why is Donald Trump running under their flag? He’s never had strong party affiliation (he’s been a registered Democrat, Republican, Independent, you name it). His most recent affiliation came in 2009 as a Republican. He’s given plenty of money to Democratic candidates – including Hillary Clinton herself. His only ‘conservative’ qualification is that he is anti-immigration, and there are plenty of Republicans who neither share his views on immigration nor would say that being anti-immigrant makes one conservative.
Regardless he is running as a Republican and serving generally as a thorn in the Republican side. To the next question: Why is the Republican establishment tolerating him?
It seems Republicans made a decision at the start of the campaign not to go after Trump, for fear of angering the growing mass of Trump supporters and pushing voters toward Trump. It seems they thought if they ignored Trump he’d go away, opening the door to a ‘real’ Republican. So instead of being vocal against Trump and, for example, attacking him on his Republican credentials, they let him be. Big mistake for the Republican establishment, as none of them want Trump in power, but didn’t think long-term enough to appeal to actual Republicans.
• • •
On the Democratic side of things, there was a similar trend to ignore, in this case of Bernie Sanders by the Clinton campaign. Again, big mistake, as Sanders has a certain authenticity that is reaching many Democratic voters who are tired of the Clintons and just don’t trust Hillary. Even avowed conservatives have expressed a begrudging respect for Sanders, despite disagreeing with all of his policy ideas and, frankly, his entire world view.
Sanders espouses democratic socialism, which in a nutshell calls for the government to provide most social services, including childcare, healthcare, pension, etc. How to pay for it? There’s really only one way governments fund themselves, as that’s through taxes.
Before you decide you’re a Sanders supporter, have a look at the personal income tax levels in some of the countries most lauded for democratic socialism, or what they call social democracy:
The biggest factor to consider is the middle column, tax revenue as percentage of GDP, and the reason why the US is significantly lower is the lack of VAT or a federal goods and services tax. (In Colorado, for example, the sales tax varies from 2.9-10.9%.) If the US goes the Sanders route, it’s going to need a lot more tax revenue to generate the kinds of services some of these European countries offer. Which means the first column, personal income tax, is likely to go way up. Are Sanders supporters willing to put their money where there mouths are?
