I agree that this is a different can of (nasty) worms. The message I replied to said that > It was not wrong to say Hillary had a 95% chance of winning the pre

I agree that this is a different can of (nasty) worms. The message I replied to said that > It was not wrong to say Hillary had a 95% chance of winning the presidential election, Frequentist inference cannot be interpreted as a probability unless one goes through some (often misunderstood, as you pointed out) contortions. In your scenario where you have 95% confidence of something it would be wrong to say that Clinton had a 95% chance of winning.