Biden is no more likely to have dementia than Dan Quayle did as VP. Some people just say dumb things in public and you don’t have to invent medical diagnoses to explain them.
A bet has two components, the odds and the amount of the wager. What makes Russian Roulette a madman’s game is not the odds. As you said a 0.85 chance is pretty good. The kicker is the amount of the wager, your life.
I would happily play a game with those odds at a dollar on each trigger pull. I would be unwilling to play a game for my life even at a 0.999 chance.
====eta====
I see 538 now has Biden at an 88.88% chance of a majority at the convention. Saunders is at 2%.
If Biden wins Michigan, the odds are better of a civilization-ending meteor strike than they would be for Sanders to somehow win the nomination.
Both Bushes for example.
Remember the first Bush declaring Pearl Harbor Day on September 7?
In the fall of 2016, Hillary had a lock on the White House itself… until she didn’t.
True, but this isn’t the general election, and Joe Biden ain’t Hillary Clinton.
I’ve got the shovel but I’ll hold off on digging the Sanders campaign’s grave until after tomorrow’s election in Michigan.
I don’t believe 538 ever gave Hillary a “lock” for the 2016 election. I don’t recall if her chances ever got close to 90% (as, sadly, it appears that Biden has now for the nomination). I’m very disappointed that Biden appears to be on track for the nomination, and I hope I’m wrong on how weak a candidate he would be.
PLEASE don’t spread this misinformation. In October 2016, I PLEADED with Dopers to understand what 75% probability meant. It meant, if you have four cartons of milk in you fridge, and one of them will give you a retching positioning from spoilage, do you happily grab a carton at random, and chug away, fully confident it will contain delicious, unspoiled milk? Of course not!
This is exactly my feeling. If Sanders over performs in Michigan. Even if he gets annihilated there, he will certainly hold on for the debate on Sunday and then may as well stick around for the March 17th primary (AZ, FL, IL and OH). If Biden can manage not to fuck up the debate, it will completely be over on March 18th.
What % likelihood does a poll directly tell you? It doesn’t. Analysts take polls and calculate % likelihoods but if your claim is that any particular analyst is better at this than betting markets, you’re just asserting repeatedly without evidence; the evidence won’t appear just from you repeating it. 
Again as mentioned on other thread, everyone betting can read the websites of well known analysts, so why would they be any less sagacious on average than you are if you’ve concluded Nate always knows best, and that’s actually true.
But it’s just unknown if that’s true. There aren’t enough statistics to strongly indicate it one way or another. Somebody mentioned odds just before Nov '16 election. 538’s last analysis made it ~70/30 in favor of Clinton. The final RCP betting odds point was ~82/18 but it had been around 70/30 just a few days before. Intuition says (though doesn’t prove either) model outputs like NYT’s 99/1 were probably wrong, that Trump’s chance was probably more than 1 in a 100 rather than him having succeeded against those actual odds. But between 70/30 and 80/20 it’s entirely unclear which of those was closer to correct, people often assume both were too high in favor of HRC but that’s not clear either. And again the betting odds weren’t always higher.
But again in the context of this thread your argument is irrelevant not just weak. The question posed on this tangent of the thread was if it’s true ‘they said Sanders was a lock, now they say Biden is’. If nothing else betting markets are one reflection of what ‘they’ think at a given time, right or wrong. And the ‘they’ of bettors clearly didn’t favor Sanders as much after the NV caucus as they do Biden now. That particular ‘they’ hasn’t completely flip flopped. It’s just that new information has shifted the expectation.
I’ve seen no evidence that this is true, and it certainly looks a lot like some familiar patterns of disinformation about Hillary Clinton from 2016. Spreading such rumors without solid evidence seems pretty irresponsible, and inconsistent with a person posting on a site meant to fight ignorance.
But, even if there were reason to suspect it was, there’s a big difference between someone with the intentions to govern well and honorably, who surrounds themselves with competent and responsible people, and someone who has a selfish and narcissistic approach, who surrounds themselves with sycophants and people with similar motives and (lack of) ethics.
Ok. You enjoy your betting sites.
I meant retching poisoning.
Perception becomes reality. A lot of people *thought *she had a lock, even though, as we later learned (and for the reason you stated), 't’wasn’t so.
I see. Yes, sadly, this is true.
So you’re saying we should sniff the candidates prior to voting. I accept that.
“Lead” is a metal or the position Biden has at the moment or the marking substance in a pencil. You meant to use “led,” like you were taught in third grade. (grumbling)
Sorry, but it takes me out of the flow of your prose.
Biden and Sanders will be speaking in Cleveland tomorrow at almost the same time. Should be interesting.
Okay. Now 538 give Biden 99 to 1 odds. That is claiming a lock.
And >99% on a plurality. Eep. I am shocked at the confidence level, frankly.