Reply #66: We're basically the equivalent of a 3 point favorite in a football game

[Awsi Dooger]

That's what 60/40 equates to, in man-to-man terms minus any house take.

Democrats have been roughly 60/40 chalk on all the wagering sites for a year or more. It hasn't deviated at all this cycle, despite the mass hysteria that a prolonged battle has sabotaged our chances.

In an open race we were never going to be heavy odds-on favorites. That's the misconception here and elsewhere. It's hardly the equivalent of a second term midterm where any mistake can be overcome by the landslide terrain.

How can we be massive favorites by nominating a Never-Never-Land candidate like first black or first woman? The pivotal states like Ohio and Florida are not going to prevent rural areas from participating. And without Florida or Ohio we can't dominate the electoral map.

Anyway, I'll take the 3 point favoritism every time. If states like Virginia and Colorado continue to drift our way in demographic terms then perhaps in a decade we'll manage a comfy cushion. That's anything but the case right now.

Odds-on simply means greater theoretical chance than all other outcomes combined. So the term doesn't have much significance in political scope, once we reach the general election. With only two options, naturally one will be odds-on, even if slight. The clowns are the ones who thrill to assert Hillary was a heavy odds-on favorite in a primary field with 8 or 9 other candidates, including two top tier opponents.

Here's the bottom line truth: Hillary was never favored to win our nomination by the same percentage Democrats are favored to win the presidency in November.