Summary of prediction vs. outcome

• Sacks predicted that Trump’s COVID policy stance (against renewed/permanent lockdowns, for reopening) would be a net electoral plus for him and would help him win in 2020, especially contrasted with Democrats supposedly favoring “permanent lockdowns.”
• In reality, Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, with 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232, and a popular vote margin of about 4.5 percentage points (51.3% to 46.8%).

What political science and polling evidence show
Multiple post‑election analyses indicate that COVID and Trump’s handling of it were, on balance, a liability rather than an asset:

1. Approval of Trump’s COVID handling was consistently net negative by late summer and fall 2020. Public polling through September–November 2020 showed more voters disapproving than approving of his handling of the pandemic, and this disapproval was strongly associated with voting against him (shown in major poll aggregations and postelection surveys).
2. Issue salience & vote choice: Exit polls and large‑N surveys (e.g., AP VoteCast, major media/academic analyses) found that:
   • Voters who prioritized the coronavirus pandemic as the most important issue broke heavily for Biden.
   • Voters who supported quicker reopening and were less worried about COVID tended to support Trump, but they were numerically smaller than the group worried about the virus and supportive of stronger public‑health measures.
3. County‑ and state‑level data: Research using county‑level death/case data generally finds that higher COVID impact correlated with relative declines in Trump’s vote share compared to 2016, especially in suburban and swing areas, implying the pandemic environment and his response hurt rather than helped him electorally.

Evaluating the exact claim
The prediction has two linked components:

1. “COVID policy is a net plus for Trump in this campaign” – This is contradicted by:

   • National polling showing a net negative approval of Trump’s COVID response.
   • Issue‑priority voters concerned about the pandemic breaking strongly for Biden.
   • Empirical work showing worse COVID conditions were associated with weaker Trump performance vs. 2016.

2. “This idea of permanent lockdowns, if that is the alternative to Trump, will help Trump win” – In practice:

   • Biden did not run on “permanent lockdowns” but on a more aggressive federal COVID response (testing, masking, stimulus, guidance) coupled with reopening once controlled.
   • Voters worried about health risks and dissatisfied with Trump’s approach were large enough, in key swing states, to deny him reelection.
   • Whatever limited relative benefit Trump may have gained among anti‑lockdown / pro‑reopening voters was insufficient to offset the larger group motivated against him by his COVID handling, so it did not “help Trump win.”

Because:

• Trump lost the 2020 election, and
• The best available evidence indicates his COVID stance was, on balance, electorally harmful or at best not a net plus,

the prediction that COVID policy would be a “net plus for Trump” and would help him win is incorrect.

Conclusion

• Result: wrong – Trump’s COVID policy stance did not become a net electoral advantage that helped him win; instead, he lost the 2020 election, and analyses broadly indicate that his handling of COVID hurt rather than helped his electoral chances.