Primary season is in full swing. Super Tuesday has come and gone. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton performed about how the polls expected and are now big favorites to become the nominees for their respective parties. But supporters of Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and maybe even John Kasich are not giving up on a comeback. As the senior political correspondent here at Tilting Ground, I have a moral obligation to keep you abreast of all the pertinent information about the candidates still in the race. I do not take this obligation lightly. So let’s get to it.

Bet to Win

In the last few major US elections, betting odds have been a better indicator of political results than national polls. So I will start my election analysis with a look at the current odds for the major candidates. The two candidates leading in the polls are dominating the betting markets.

The change in odds since the primaries began indicates an absurd amount of money has been wagered on Hillary and the Donald. Hillary is now a 1-2 favorite to be our next president. That is the odds equivalent of a 67% chance. Trump is the 2-1 second choice to beat out Hillary for the highest office in the land, the odds equivalent of a 33% chance.

That seems to leave 0% for everyone else. The individual odds of the other candidates are low, but not statistically insignificant. The odds of all the candidates add up to over 100% because that disparity is where the bookies get paid.

The third betting choice is Marco Rubio, at about 15-1 or 6%. Bernie Sanders is in the 20-1 to 25-1 range, or 4-5%. Ted Cruz is 50-1, or 2%. Kasich is 80-1, or 1.25%. Michael Bloomberg, who is not yet in the race but has been openly considering running as an independent, is 50-1, or 2%.

The delegate math is confusing. Many smart reporters do their best to break it down for us, and they do a good job. But many more highly intelligent and self-interested individuals spend their time analyzing historical voting patterns and the electoral process not to inform the public but to profit off them. They don’t care about what should happen, they care about what will happen.

Money tends to follow the savviest analysis, and the money is saying we have a two horse race. But Donald and Hillary are not squaring off yet. The primaries are still going strong. Each party has its own issues, and each deserves its own examination.

Revolution vs. Evolution – The Bernie Sanders Generational Divide

Bernie Sanders’ continual reference to a political revolution seems to both energize younger voters and turn off older voters. The older you get, the more your life relies on current institutions and the less you are likely to support a complete uprooting of them. For many of the more aged electorate, the term revolution evokes feelings of fear and uncertainty. Even if many older Democrats share the same ideals as younger ones, they are more likely to support gradual changes to the status quo than a more aggressive shift in direction.

I also think that there is a decent part of the older electorate on the Democrat’s side that have seen their share of progressive candidates making waves early in the primaries and then either not get close to the nomination, or get the nomination and get crushed in the general election. Even if many of these people are ready for a political revolution, they may fear that the same rhetoric that stokes up the base during primary season will turn off mainstream voters in a general election.

The youth does not harbor such bad memories, nor do they see a need for gradual reform. Older Democrats may see themselves as realistic, but many of the younger members of the party see them as cynical. The older Democrats are more likely to see Hillary as a consistent advocate for the disenfranchised. The younger Democrats are more likely to see her as a part of the establishment and thus a part of the problem.

The younger voters likely have no memory of the times in which Hillary made some of her more controversial statements or when the Clintons took what today are seen as controversial positions. They see the Defense of Marriage Act as a shot against marriage equality, but older progressives may remember that passing DOMA stemmed a strong movement for a constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage. Despite its flaws, DOMA allowed states to continue on a path towards legalizing gay marriage without interference from the federal government.

Younger voters hear the sound clip of Hillary calling gang members supper criminals and blame her for our aggressive policing policies and excessive imprisonment. Older voters remember that violent crime was a much bigger problem in the late 80’s and early 90’s, and Democrats were losing elections because they were seen as soft on crime.

Perhaps this divide can help explain how the Democratic electorate seems to hold vastly different views on two candidates that voted together 93% of the time when they were both in the Senate.

Hillary’s to Lose?

Mrs. Clinton has a solid lead in states and delegates won. The super delegates are stacked in her favor but they are free to change their minds and if the electorate starts to speak loudly in favor of Mr. Sanders I’m sure he would get some to switch allegiances. But the polls and betting markets seem to think we will see a similar pattern of big wins for Hillary in more diverse states and tighter wins for Bernie in smaller states.

None of the Democratic primaries are winner take all. Each award delegates proportionately to the vote, so Hillary is still a long way away from securing the nomination. And Bernie’s campaign is flush enough with cash to stay in the race for the long term. So while there is not an easy path to the nomination for Mr. Sanders, the race is far from over, and at the very least those that are feeling the Bern can keep making their voices heard and continue to play a part in the political dialogue.

In many of the upcoming state primaries polling data is sparse and less reliable. If the political revolution is starting to take hold, maybe the polls are lagging behind popular sentiment. But right now Mr. Sanders is behind in most upcoming states and it looks like he has no chance of making a good showing in anywhere in the south.

Michigan is the biggest state up for grabs next week delegate-wise and it is demographically very different than the south where Hillary has been dominating. Bernie could catch steam if he can win over northern states with more white, blue-collar Democrats, but the prediction model at fivethirtyeight.com thinks Hillary will pull more than 60% of the vote in Michigan. There is no reason to stop fighting the good fight, but it may be time for Bernie supporters to temper their expectations and mentally prepare for a Trump/Hillary general election.

The End of the Republican Party?

Might history look back on the Tea Party movement of 2010 as the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as we once knew it? Not long ago, that idea may have seemed farfetched, but the way things are playing out in the Republican primaries, it is becoming less of an absurd hypothesis.

The Republican establishment always seemed to figure that Trump would flame out on his own, and then the adults could get together and elect someone like Jeb Bush. Maybe no individual wanted to take on the Donald for fear of being the focus of one of his many public attacks. Maybe the party brass felt that attacking Trump would be seen as stooping to his level and hurt them in a general election. Whatever the reason, no one made a concerted effort to extract this cancer from the Republican primary process until recently. Now it looks to be too late, and it might be killing the party.

Donald Trump is winning the most delegates and ahead in most polls. His path to the nomination is clearer than any other candidate in the race. The best way to stop him would be for Republicans to rally around one of the other candidates, but the candidate with the second most delegates is almost as disliked as Trump in his own party.

Ted Cruz has not been endorsed by any of his co-workers in the Senate. In his time on the Senate floor, he has managed to pass one bill and lead one government shutdown. The man is principled. So principled that he would prefer a government that accomplishes nothing and puts its employees out of work than one that relies on compromise or collaboration. He seems to pray for guidance a lot, and his god must be telling him to be a dick, or maybe there are communication issues. Either way, if he wasn’t such an awful jackass, the party would have already rallied around him as their best chance to beat Trump.

The Republican establishment wants everyone to rally around Marco Rubio. Rubio and Kasich are likely the most palatable in a general election but Rubio stirs up more support from the Republican base and has more delegates than Kasich. The voters, however, don’t seem to care much for the establishment. And Cruz is not going anywhere. So unless something changes quickly, Donald looks set to roll into the nomination while the rest of the party cannibalizes itself. With no great unifier, the party looks set to nominate a man that many find repugnant. A Trump Republican nomination would test many representatives’ party loyalty like never before.

Everyone’s Tax Plan is Ridiculous

As a nation that has been spending more than it brings in since the turn of the century, maybe it’s time to get our financial house in order. Unfortunately, many of the candidates’ tax plans look to exacerbate current fiscal problems. Republicans often use fanciful assumptions about all the positive effects their policies will have on the economy. Their rosy projections miraculously make up for the trillions of dollars our already indebted government will forego if they get their way. Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy, but most also want to increase government spending at an even higher rate and leave our government with more bills to pay.

With regards to plans from the Republican side, The Economist had this to say, “Done right, reforming and simplifying taxes would boost growth. Yet the gargantuan cost of the plans comes from tax cuts for high earners, and the evidence that these help the economy is patchy. Crucially, whether tax cuts boost growth depends on how they are paid for. If they cause deficits to gape larger, tax cuts will weigh on growth rather than support it, by gradually pushing up interest rates.”

Most evidence suggests that taxes on dividends do not affect investment. The Republican mantra that tax decreases always result in higher growth isn’t supported by economic evidence. Tax cuts that our government can’t afford are bad for the economy and will drag down growth.

I also personally feel that the issue of our tax rate has become a moral one. Taxes on money earned from dividends and capital gains go overwhelmingly to the wealthy and yet they are taxed at a lower rate than money earned from wages. I do not see a point to this distinction in our tax code. Income is income. It is morally wrong to tax money made from having money at a lower rate than money made from labor. Every Republican candidate plans to make the problem worse because of a misplaced faith in certain economic policies, and a disregard for the facts.

It looks like I have written enough for the time being. There is still plenty to discuss but I plan on writing more about the election as it proceeds so I’ll leave some meat on the bone for next time. I will leave you with one final thought. I am growing weary of the continuous lack of respect for opposing political viewpoints. Not everyone shares other’s reasons for backing one candidate over another, nor should they. So why do so many people assume that those who support a different candidate do so out of ignorance or malice? In reality, every candidate is flawed. Each individual has their own reasons for their preference. Telling someone that their preference is wrong, especially in a hurtful or insulting way is not the best way to advance your cause.