I don't think any of this explains the jargon in that paragraph from the paper, which is what I questioning. And Nate Silver didn't have a 98:2 forecast. If I

I don't think any of this explains the jargon in that paragraph from the paper, which is what I questioning. And Nate Silver didn't have a 98:2 forecast. If I make a bad bet I don't go "bankrupt" or lose that money before the event happens. There's more than one way to structure betting on events than the way he proposes as well, so I still don't understand why his is an authoritative take. "Given the recent history ... and other factors" is more of an explanation for why someone thought it was a coinflip, but doesn't represent "a proper statistical analysis" modeling 50:50.