I agree with you completely that Clinton was a betting favorite. I also do not believe that the figure was determined by some biased editor. I am however saying that a retarded bias got in the way of fact checking numbers that make no sense. If this was a third party candidate I might accept a number that low, but there is absolutely no way that odds would actually be that skewed in a nation wide election between candidate of our two core parties. All they did was give false hope of a win to one side.

And again, the dice analogy is not spot on. With dice there is an equal chance of each outcome happening randomly. There was nothing random about this election. The same election could not be repeated with a different result each time.

And to be clear, I get that OP was focusing on the aspect of probability when they wrote their example. But you can't ignore all the details in an example just to focus on the one piece that makes sense. That was my point and I'll stand by it.