In fairness, the 8% may have been betting that mainstream media both-siderism and cowardice would deflate the count used as a criterion (the Washington Post’s fact-checking live blog) like a Patriots football.
Yep, the long-shot. Like betting a dollar on the old nag to win. If that bet comes in, your $1 becomes $1000.
The weird thing is, I agree with every word in your post here. I just think it makes my point! 
“The flatness speaks to how entrenched opinions are about him. Big negative stories that would have caused huge swings for other presidents barely move the needle. For that matter something positive, like a good economic report, hardly moves him up” is why it would be a Big Fucking Deal if something moved him out of this narrow range his approval has been in for nearly a year now. It would suggest that something had broken through at least some population subgroup’s crystallized opinions about Trump.
After the whole Donna Brazille thing, I’ve become rather circumspect about underestimating the backroom communication channels between the media and the Democratic Party, but if I had to hazard a guess in that case, I suspect it had more to do with ratings than character arc.
Train wrecks attract more eyeballs indeed.
I guess you see breaking out of the three point range he’s been in for 10 months as more meaningful of breaking through crystalized thoughts than I do. Which is fair enough. To me these last ten months are him floating near his ceiling as he’s had lots of what would have been good enough economic reports and to have put another president way up there. The current drop is just an overdue return to his mean. Approval of 40 +/- 3 is his center of gravity. A run of bad events can drive him to the low end, a lack of major disasters and good economic reports will keep him on the high end, but so long as he’s traveling in that channel it is nothing exciting, either way.
Agreed that getting out of the narrow range would be something; I just think of the narrow range as the six point one, not the last ten month’s three point one.
Meanwhile these tantrums are aimed at his hard base, not at reaching to leaners. I’d suspect his hard base is approving more strongly now than say last month at his peak of 43.
Actually, the bet wasn’t offering long odds in either direction:
If I’m interpreting the listing correctly, someone betting on less than 3.5 lies would wager $115 to collect $100 (plus the original $115) if Lord Orange had an unusual interlude of honesty.
Basically, the site set the “3.5” line by trying to guess a combination of “what number of lies will he be about equally likely to reach or not” and “what number of lies will attract roughly equal ‘over’ and ‘under’ betting so we make a reasonable profit either way”, and guessed much too low.
They knew they were in trouble before it aired:
I gotta think the betting story is bogus. A “lie” is a qualified judgement call, it is not a definite and clarified thing. No way this bet is real, no bookie accepts a wager than depends on argument and interpretation.
From the initial post of the subthread:
I, for one, was disappointed he didn’t go off-script during the speech. It truly would have been a emperor has no clothes moment.
If we can extend back to his candidacy, another disappointment I had was when – as I complained in another thread – neither 'grab ‘em by the pussy’ nor bashing a gold star family moved his approval much or for long.
I’ve no coffee yet; what’s the term for when someone has bought the snake oil then doubles down rather than say they might have made a mistake?
idiot?
Sunk cost fallacy I think is the one you are thinking of.
I trust we’ll hear no more about Obama using a teleprompter. This guy looked worse than an SNL guest reading the cue cards during a sketch.
Hell, he looked worse than Captain Hammer reading “I hate the homeless…” (flip cue card) “…ness problem that plagues our city”.
But…but those steel slats were artistically designed! HOW COULD THEY DEFILE THEM LIKE THAT!!
Like throwing mud on the Mona Lisa, I tell ya. 
ETA: Steve MB: what an absolutely (Dr.) Horrible comparison!
They didn’t. They used a DESAW.
If the steel slats can be used by agents to see if anyone is trying to get through, can they also be used by immigrants to see if any agents are nearby while they easily cut through a slat or two and slip through?