Last updated Nov 29, 2025

E15: "The Besties" All-In's inaugural award show covering the best, worst & most memorable of 2020

Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:46:51 +0000
Back to episodes
politicsgovernment
Kamala Harris will become President of the United States and will be the first female U.S. president, either during Joe Biden’s first term (via succession) or by winning the election if Biden does not run for a second term.
I think she winds up actually becoming president and will be the first female president of the year of in the history of the United States. And that could happen in the first term. Or if Joe Biden doesn't run for a second termView on YouTube
Explanation

Kamala Harris never became President of the United States. She served as the 49th vice president from January 20, 2021, to January 20, 2025, under President Joe Biden and then left office when Donald Trump, with JD Vance as vice president, took office after winning the 2024 election. (en.wikipedia.org)

In 2024, Biden did abandon his reelection bid and endorsed Harris, and she became the Democratic nominee. However, she lost the general election to Trump (312–226 in the Electoral College, 49.8%–48.3% in the popular vote), so the scenario "if Joe Biden doesn't run for a second term" did not result in her becoming president. (britannica.com)

Harris briefly served as acting president for about 85 minutes on November 19, 2021, while Biden underwent a colonoscopy, becoming the first woman to assume the powers and duties of the presidency under the 25th Amendment. (en.wikipedia.org) However, contemporary reporting and analysis explicitly note that this did not count as a woman serving as U.S. president; the United States is still regarded as never having had a female president. (abc.net.au)

Because Harris did not become president either by succession during Biden’s first term or by winning the election after Biden declined to run again, Jason’s prediction is judged wrong.

politicsgovernment
Nancy Pelosi will lose the Speakership by around January 2023 (after the 2022 midterms) and will be effectively headed into retirement from top House leadership at that time.
I predict that she is set to not be speaker anymore in two years and headed for retirement.View on YouTube
Explanation

Why this prediction is rated ‘right’

  • Pelosi lost the Speakership after the 2022 midterms, with the change occurring in early January 2023. Republicans narrowly won control of the U.S. House in the November 8, 2022 midterm elections, ending the Democratic majority that had made Nancy Pelosi Speaker. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • Her term as Speaker ended on January 3, 2023. Nancy Pelosi’s second stint as Speaker ran from January 3, 2019, to January 3, 2023, at which point she was succeeded by Republican Kevin McCarthy as Speaker in the new Congress. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • She simultaneously exited top House leadership at that time. Pelosi also ended her long run as leader of the House Democratic Caucus on January 3, 2023, with Hakeem Jeffries taking over as Democratic leader. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • She remained in Congress but was effectively in post-leadership “retirement” from top roles. After January 2023 she served only as a rank‑and‑file member and honorary “speaker emerita,” having explicitly announced she would not seek any leadership role in the next Congress following the midterms. (cnbc.com)

Since the prediction was that Pelosi would no longer be Speaker around January 2023 after the 2022 midterms and would be effectively headed into retirement from top House leadership at that time, and both of those things occurred, the prediction is right.

Sacks @ 00:18:13Inconclusive
marketseconomy
Elon Musk will become the richest person in the world and, eventually, the first individual with a net worth of at least $1 trillion.
I think Elon seems to be on track to be, uh, not only the world's richest man, but the world's first trillionaire.View on YouTube
Explanation

Status of the prediction (as of Nov 29, 2025)

  1. “World’s richest man” part – This has already happened.

    • Multiple sources (Forbes/Bloomberg, summarized in reference works) state that Elon Musk has been the wealthiest person in the world since 2021, and as of 2025 his net worth is around $470–500 billion, making him the richest individual globally.【turn0search16】【turn0search23】
  2. “World’s first trillionaire” part – This has not happened yet.

    • The same sources put Musk’s net worth at about $500 billion in late 2025—roughly half a trillion, and note milestones like being the first person to exceed $300 billion, then $400 billion, then $500 billion, but not $1 trillion.【turn0search16】
    • Broader billionaire statistics show thousands of billionaires worldwide with a combined wealth of about $16.1 trillion, and name Musk (around $500 billion) as the wealthiest; no individual is listed anywhere near $1 trillion.【turn0search20】【turn0news15】
    • Contemporary analyses explicitly describe Musk as on track or projected to become the first trillionaire by around 2027, underscoring that this is still a future projection, not an accomplished fact.【turn0search0】【turn0search5】

Why the overall prediction is “inconclusive”

The prediction, in normalized form, was: Elon Musk will become the richest person in the world and, eventually, the first individual with a net worth of at least $1 trillion.

  • The first clause (richest person) has already come true.
  • The second clause (first trillionaire) has not yet occurred, but nothing in the current data rules it out for the future; in fact, several analyses treat it as plausible or even likely.

Because the prediction is about an open-ended future event (no deadline was specified) and it has neither occurred nor been rendered impossible, the correct assessment as of November 29, 2025 is:

Result: inconclusive (too early to tell whether he will indeed become the world’s first trillionaire).

Post‑COVID, consumer demand for traditional movie theaters (e.g., chains like AMC) will collapse such that moviegoing will not recover to pre‑2020 norms; audiences largely will not return to theaters.
No one's gonna go back to the movie theaters.View on YouTube
Explanation

Summary: The prediction that “no one’s gonna go back to the movie theaters” and that post‑COVID demand for traditional theaters would collapse and not recover to pre‑2020 norms is overstated and wrong. While the industry remains structurally weaker and below 2019 levels, audiences did return in large numbers and box office largely rebounded.

Key evidence:

  1. Domestic box office strongly recovered vs. 2020–2021

    • U.S./Canada box office revenue was $11.4B in 2019 (last pre‑COVID year). In 2020 it crashed to ~$2.2B, then recovered to $4.5B in 2021, $7.45B in 2022, and $9.03B in 2023. (investor.amctheatres.com)
    • 2023’s ~$9.0B is only ~21% below 2019 and is the highest total since the pandemic, with analysts framing it as a major post‑pandemic rebound. (forbes.com)
      This is a significant recovery, not a permanent collapse of demand.
  2. Attendance is down vs. 2019 but still very large

    • Industry data from AMC’s 2023 10‑K (citing NATO/Comscore) show North American admissions of 833M in 2023 vs. 1.244B in 2019—about two‑thirds of pre‑COVID ticket volume. (investor.amctheatres.com)
    • That’s a material decline, but hundreds of millions of tickets sold annually directly contradict any notion that “no one” went back or that audiences “largely” never returned.
  3. By mid‑2020s, box office is persistently below 2019 but still robust

    • Cinema United (formerly NATO) reported 2024 box office of about $8.6B, still roughly 25% below 2019’s $11.4B, and argued for longer theatrical windows to help recovery. (reuters.com)
    • A 2025 AP‑NORC poll notes that while box office remains more than 22% below pre‑pandemic levels, about two‑thirds of U.S. adults saw at least one movie in a theater in the past year, with 16% going monthly. (apnews.com)
      This supports a partial, not total, erosion of the theatrical habit.
  4. Big event films show strong, repeated demand for theaters

    • 2023 blockbusters like Barbie, The Super Mario Bros. Movie, and Oppenheimer collectively helped push domestic box office above $9B, with Barbie alone earning over $636M domestically. (forbes.com)
    • In 2025, films such as Wicked: For Good opened to $150M domestic and $226M worldwide in their first weekend, one of the biggest openings of the year and a record for Broadway adaptations, again filling thousands of theaters. (apnews.com)
      These repeated, large‑scale turnouts show that audiences do still come back in force for major releases.
  5. Analysts attribute much of the gap to supply and competition, not to zero demand

    • Industry analysis notes that 2022–2023 shortfalls versus 2019 were heavily driven by fewer wide releases and shortened theatrical windows, not a fundamental refusal of audiences to attend. (cnbc.com)
    • Research from S&P Global in 2022 found frequent moviegoers had essentially returned to pre‑pandemic visit frequency, with the main drop coming from infrequent attendees. (spglobal.com)

Conclusion:

By late 2025, moviegoing has not fully returned to 2019 levels, and streaming has permanently shifted some demand. But domestic box office rebounded to around 75–80% of pre‑COVID revenue, with hundreds of millions of annual admissions and repeated blockbuster‑driven surges. That reality conflicts with a prediction that “no one” would go back and that audiences “largely” would not return. Therefore, the prediction is wrong.

techmarkets
Theatrical moviegoing will eventually recover strongly after COVID, and major tech platforms will acquire U.S. theater chains: Amazon will buy one major chain and Netflix will buy another, integrating theater access with their subscription offerings.
they're gonna come back strong, they're gonna come back stronger. I think Amazon will buy one chain. I think Netflix buys the other.View on YouTube
Explanation

Two key parts of Jason’s prediction have not come true as of November 29, 2025:

  1. Amazon and Netflix buying major U.S. theater chains

    • Major U.S. exhibitors like AMC, Regal (Cineworld), and Cinemark remain independent theater chains; none has been acquired by Amazon or Netflix. Recent coverage of AMC still describes it raising capital and operating as its own chain, not as an Amazon subsidiary. (marketwatch.com)
    • Amazon has only taken individual locations/leases, not a chain—for example, it acquired the lease of the former ArcLight Culver City location as its first movie theatre, which reopened as the Culver Theatre in 2022. That is a single site, not a chain acquisition. (en.wikipedia.org)
    • Netflix likewise operates individual prestige venues (New York’s Paris Theater and Hollywood’s Egyptian Theatre) rather than owning a major circuit. (en.wikipedia.org)
    • Amazon’s large deal in filmed entertainment was the acquisition of MGM, a studio and library business, not a theater chain. (en.wikipedia.org)

    Because no major U.S. theater chain has been bought by either Amazon or Netflix, the acquisition portion of the prediction is clearly false.

  2. “They’re gonna come back strong, they’re gonna come back stronger” (post‑COVID theatrical recovery)

    • North American box office peaked pre‑COVID at about $11.4 billion in 2019. (comscore.com)
    • After collapsing in 2020–2021, it rebounded but has not surpassed or matched pre‑pandemic levels. 2023 domestic box office was about $9.0 billion, the best post‑COVID year but still well below 2019. (forbes.com)
    • 2024 domestic box office was about $8.56 billion, again under both 2019 and 2023. (forbes.com)
    • Early 2025 and key weekends (e.g., Memorial Day 2025) show strong spikes and significant recovery, but reporting still notes that U.S./Canada ticket sales remain roughly 20–30% below pre‑pandemic 2019 levels. (lemonde.fr)

    Theatrical moviegoing has recovered meaningfully with big hits and record individual weekends, but by the straightforward metric of total annual box office it has not come back “stronger” than before COVID; it remains below 2019.

Because (a) Amazon and Netflix did not buy major U.S. theater chains and (b) box office has not surpassed pre‑COVID levels, Jason’s combined prediction is best judged as wrong.

markets
Disney+ will establish itself as a long‑term, major rival to Netflix in the global streaming market.
I don't know if they'll pass them, but they're now certainly going to be a major rival to them.View on YouTube
Explanation

Evidence since 2020 shows Disney+ has in fact become a long‑term, major rival to Netflix in global streaming.

  • Rapid scale‑up close to Netflix from the start: By December 2020 (the month of the prediction), Disney+ had already reached about 86.8 million subscribers, and passed 94.9 million by early 2021, far ahead of its original targets. (en.wikipedia.org) Industry coverage at the one‑year mark was already calling Disney+ “Netflix’s biggest rival,” explicitly framing it as the primary competitive threat in the streaming wars. (thewrap.com)

  • Direct competition in total subscriptions: By August 2022, Disney’s streaming portfolio (Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+) reached 221 million subscriptions, slightly surpassing Netflix’s ~220.7 million at that time, cementing Disney as a peer‑scale competitor in global streaming. (en.wikipedia.org) Disney+ alone counted 161.8 million subscribers worldwide by the end of 2022. (en.wikipedia.org)

  • Sustained, large‑scale rival through 2025: As of late 2025, Netflix still leads the market with 300M+ subscribers, but Disney remains one of the only platforms in the same tier: Disney+ has about 131.6 million subscribers on its own, and Disney+ plus Hulu total roughly 195–196 million globally. (thewrap.com) Analyses of the 2025 streaming landscape typically list Disney+ alongside Amazon Prime Video and Max as Netflix’s main global rivals, with Disney+ holding around 12–14% share in major markets and ranking in the top few services by usage. (corestory.in)

Across a 5‑year window (2019–2025), Disney+ has maintained large global scale, is consistently discussed as one of Netflix’s primary competitors, and occasionally even edges Netflix in combined subscriptions when bundled with Hulu/ESPN+. That matches the podcast’s claim that Disney+ would be a major long‑term rival—even though, as the predictor hedged, it has not clearly surpassed Netflix overall.

Jason @ 00:24:53Inconclusive
Disney+ will surpass Netflix in size (e.g., subscriber count or comparable primary scale metric) in the future.
I think they I think they pass them.View on YouTube
Explanation

Available industry and investor data in 2025 consistently show Disney+ at roughly 125–132 million global subscribers, depending on the quarter and source. (evoca.tv) Over the same period, Netflix is reported at roughly 283–302 million paid subscribers worldwide, more than double Disney+’s count. (cnbc.com) Thus, as of November 29, 2025, Disney+ has not surpassed Netflix on the primary scale metric of global paying subscribers, and Netflix also continues to lead in streaming revenue and market share. (demandsage.com) However, because Jason’s prediction was open‑ended (that Disney+ will surpass Netflix in the future) and specified no time horizon, it could still occur later, so it cannot yet be definitively judged correct or incorrect.

politicsgovernment
The Black Lives Matter movement will persist and will drive significant, lasting societal and policy changes (including corporate, state, and regulatory actions) over the coming years.
I think that the, uh, the movement itself is going to spawn a lot of change.View on YouTube
Explanation

Assessment Friedberg said of Black Lives Matter (BLM) in late 2020 that “the movement itself is going to spawn a lot of change.” Normalized, this was a prediction that BLM would persist and drive significant, lasting societal and policy changes, including corporate, state, and regulatory actions, over the following years. Looking at developments through late 2025, this is broadly accurate.

1. The movement clearly persisted

  • Pew Research Center’s 2025 review of views on race and policing finds that a slim majority of Americans (about half the public) still express support for the BLM movement five years after George Floyd’s murder, with particularly strong support among Black Americans, Democrats, and young adults. This indicates that BLM remains a salient, organized cause rather than a short‑lived protest wave. (pewresearch.org)
  • Overviews of BLM describe it as an ongoing social movement whose support has fluctuated but not disappeared; support among people of color in particular has remained high into the mid‑2020s. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • BLM leaders and organizers are still covered in 2025 news as active civil‑rights actors, reflecting an enduring organizational and activist presence rather than a dissolved movement. (theguardian.com)

2. State and local policy changes linked to BLM and the 2020 protests

  • A large catalog of “police reforms related to the George Floyd protests” documents dozens of state and municipal changes enacted from 2020 onward: bans or limits on chokeholds and no‑knock warrants, new use‑of‑force standards, independent investigation mechanisms, expanded body‑camera rules, and weakened qualified‑immunity or police‑bill‑of‑rights protections in states like Maryland, Connecticut, Minnesota and many cities. These reforms were explicitly framed by lawmakers as responses to the Floyd/BLM protests. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • Illinois’ 2021 SAFE‑T Act—an omnibus criminal‑justice reform statute affecting policing, bail, sentencing and corrections—was proposed by the state’s Legislative Black Caucus in direct response to the 2020 racial‑justice protests, and its major provisions (including the Pretrial Fairness Act) are now in force as of September 2023. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • The Juneteenth National Independence Day Act, passed almost unanimously in 2021 and signed by President Biden, created a new federal holiday. Contemporary accounts note that this push was “spurred on” by the racial‑justice movement and 2020 protests, turning long‑standing advocacy into actual federal policy in the immediate wake of BLM’s high‑water mark. (en.wikipedia.org)

3. Federal regulatory changes on policing

  • After Congress failed to advance the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the Biden administration in 2022 issued Executive Order 14074, which implemented parts of that agenda at the federal level: creating a national law‑enforcement misconduct database and tightening federal police‑use‑of‑force and body‑camera standards. These steps are explicitly described as responses to Floyd’s murder and the 2020 protests. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • Although the second Trump administration rescinded some elements of EO 14074 in 2025 and moved to end certain consent decrees with police departments, reports note that not all of the underlying policy changes (e.g., body‑camera requirements) were undone; several years of federal practice and local reforms were shaped by the earlier order. (en.wikipedia.org) This pattern still fits Friedberg’s claim that the movement would “spawn a lot of change”, even if some of that change is now contested or partially reversed.

4. Corporate and institutional changes

  • A Washington Post investigation found that, in the year after George Floyd’s killing, America’s 50 largest public companies and their foundations collectively pledged nearly $50 billion for racial‑equity efforts, including grants and large investment commitments; these pledges were explicitly framed as responses to the 2020 protests and racial‑justice movement. (washingtonpost.com)
  • The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation received millions of dollars in donations from major corporations such as Amazon, Coca‑Cola, Microsoft, Airbnb, Intel and Google after Floyd’s murder, and created a multi‑million‑dollar fund for local chapters and allied grassroots groups—an institutionalization of support that goes beyond symbolic statements. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • The 15 Percent Pledge, founded in 2020, persuaded large retailers (Sephora, Macy’s, West Elm and others) to commit to devoting at least 15% of shelf space and contracting to Black‑owned businesses, embedding BLM‑era racial‑equity goals directly into supply‑chain and merchandising policies. (en.wikipedia.org)

5. Backlash and rollback don’t negate that substantial change occurred

  • By 2024–25, surveys show most Americans believe the post‑Floyd racial‑justice push has not produced as much improvement for Black Americans as they had hoped, and support for BLM has fallen from its 2020 peak, even though about half the public still supports the movement. (axios.com)
  • Major outlets report that many corporate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives launched after 2020 are now being scaled back or rebranded in response to political and legal pressure; firms like Walmart, Target, Google, Meta, McDonald’s and others have reduced or ended explicit DEI targets and programs that were originally justified in light of the 2020 protests. (apnews.com) Likewise, federal consent decrees and a national misconduct database created after Floyd have been curtailed by the current administration. (politico.com)
  • Nonetheless, analyses of the “racial reckoning” consistently acknowledge that some reforms—especially state and local policing laws, the Juneteenth federal holiday, and parts of corporate and nonprofit infrastructure—remain in place and continue to shape law, culture and institutions even amid backlash. (washingtonpost.com) Backlash itself is evidence that the movement significantly affected power structures, prompting counter‑mobilization rather than being ignored.

Conclusion Even allowing for overpromising, partial implementation, and subsequent retrenchment, the empirical record from 2020–2025 shows:

  • BLM did persist as a movement with ongoing public support and organized activism; and
  • It did spawn substantial change across corporate behavior, state and local law, and federal regulatory practice, some of which remains embedded in policy and institutions today.

Given that the prediction was qualitative (“going to spawn a lot of change”), not that BLM would achieve all its goals or avoid backlash, the best overall judgment is that Friedberg’s prediction was right.

climatepoliticsgovernment
With the Biden administration taking office in 2021, climate change policy and climate‑related initiatives will regain momentum in the United States.
I think climate change is going to have momentum with the new administration at least coming into office in the US.View on YouTube
Explanation

Evidence from 2021–2024 shows that when the Biden administration took office, U.S. climate policy and climate‑related initiatives clearly regained and sustained strong momentum relative to the prior Trump era:

  • On his first day in office (Jan. 20, 2021), President Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement and began reversing Trump‑era environmental rollbacks, which analysts described as a major policy shift on climate action. (cnbc.com)
  • In April 2021, at the Leaders Summit on Climate, Biden announced a new U.S. target to cut greenhouse gas emissions 50–52% below 2005 levels by 2030, submitted a new Nationally Determined Contribution, and this was described by Climate Action Tracker as the biggest climate step by any U.S. government in history. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), signed in November 2021, made historic investments in clean energy transmission, grid modernization, public transit, EV buses, and climate resilience—described by the administration and DOE as a once‑in‑a‑generation, foundational clean‑energy and climate investment. (bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov)
  • In August 2022, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, widely characterized as the largest climate and clean‑energy investment in U.S. history, with hundreds of billions of dollars for renewables, EVs, efficiency, and industrial decarbonization, and projected to significantly cut U.S. emissions by 2030. (en.wikipedia.org)
  • The White House climate task force summary reports that during Biden’s term the U.S. added over 100 GW of clean energy (more than half of all U.S. solar ever installed), EV sales quadrupled, and public EV charging more than doubled—indicators of strong practical momentum behind climate‑related initiatives. (bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov)

Later rollbacks under a subsequent Trump administration (e.g., renewed Paris withdrawal and efforts to dismantle IRA programs) show that momentum can be reversed politically, but they do not change the fact that with the Biden administration coming into office, U.S. climate policy and initiatives indeed regained substantial momentum, matching Friedberg’s prediction.

healthgovernment
By sometime in 2021, public and platform deference to the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) on COVID‑related guidance will substantially fade, and the W.H.O. will no longer be widely treated as a key authority in public discourse or major platforms’ content policies.
I look forward to next year when nobody cares about the W.H.O. anymore.View on YouTube
Explanation

Evidence from 2021 shows that the World Health Organization (WHO) remained a central reference point for both public discourse and major platforms’ COVID‑19 policies, contrary to the prediction that “nobody cares about the W.H.O. anymore” by sometime in 2021.

Key points:

  • YouTube explicitly grounded its COVID‑19 medical‑misinformation rules in WHO guidance. Its policy banned content that “contradict[s] expert consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO),” and this language was actively enforced in 2021—for example, in the takedown of UK MP David Davis’s speech about vaccine passports and other removals that cited the WHO clause verbatim. (bigbrotherwatch.org.uk)

  • Facebook/Meta in 2021 expanded removal of COVID‑19 and vaccine false claims “following consultations with leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization,” and labeled posts about vaccines with links to WHO information, positioning the WHO as a primary authoritative source in its COVID‑19 Information Center. (about.fb.com)

  • A 2022 longitudinal study of Twitter vaccine misinformation during 2021 treated the CDC and WHO explicitly as “authoritative sources” when comparing low‑credibility vs. mainstream information flows, indicating that in research and mainstream communication WHO was still regarded as a key authority, even though low‑credibility content sometimes got more reshares. (arxiv.org)

  • Major news coverage of variants in 2021 (e.g., Delta and Omicron) centered on WHO announcements; outlets like CNBC, Euronews, and others framed WHO’s designation of Omicron as a “variant of concern” as the pivotal trigger for government responses and travel restrictions, underscoring WHO’s continuing agenda‑setting role. (cnbc.com)

  • While some political and online communities were openly skeptical of the WHO, the organization was still structurally embedded in platform rules and official communications throughout 2021. Later rollbacks of strict COVID‑19 moderation by platforms happened mostly in 2023–2024, outside the prediction’s 2021 time frame and even then did not make WHO irrelevant. (apnews.com)

Because WHO remained widely treated as a key authority by large platforms and in mainstream public discourse through 2021, the prediction that by then “nobody cares about the W.H.O. anymore” is best judged as wrong.

markets
Nikola Corporation’s equity value will collapse to essentially zero (pennystock levels, e.g., around $0.60 per share) and the company will ultimately be worth effectively nothing.
It's now worth 6 billion. I predict it will be worth $0.60. I kid you not, this company will go to zero, is my predictionView on YouTube
Explanation

Jason predicted that Nikola Corporation’s equity value would collapse to penny‑stock levels (around $0.60 per share) and the company would ultimately be worth effectively nothing.

By early 2025, Nikola’s stock had fallen from its multi‑billion‑dollar 2020 valuation to mere cents per share; historical price data show it closing at about $0.60 on February 13, 2025 and then trading well below $1 (down more than 98% from prior highs). (tipranks.com) Reporting around the same time noted the shares in the $0.40–$0.60 range and a loss of over 99% of value since going public. (barrons.com)

On February 19, 2025, Nikola filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after failing to secure a buyer or raise sufficient capital, with plans to auction its assets; Nasdaq trading was later suspended and the company moved to delist. (cnbc.com) A subsequent court‑confirmed plan of liquidation, as summarized in the company’s 2025 Form 10‑K, states that Nikola has sold substantially all assets, ceased operations, and that all common stock and equity securities will be cancelled with shareholders receiving no distribution. (stocktitan.net)

Because the stock did in fact reach the predicted penny‑stock range and the equity is being wiped out in liquidation, Jason’s claim that Nikola’s equity would go to essentially zero and be worth nothing to shareholders has been borne out by events.

politics
Nikki Haley will successfully consolidate center-right Republican politics and become the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in the 2024 U.S. election, with the groundwork becoming visible in 2022–2023.
Smartest political move. Which you will not see until 2022 or 23, but laid the groundwork this year and I thought it was brilliantly done. Was Nikki Haley, who I think will be the Republican nominee for president in 2024... I think if you want to find, um, somebody to consolidate centre right politics in 2024, uh, my money would be on Nikki Haley.View on YouTube
Explanation

Nikki Haley did not become the 2024 Republican Party presidential nominee. Donald Trump was formally nominated for president at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, while JD Vance was nominated for vice president.(en.wikipedia.org)

Haley did run for the 2024 Republican nomination and had some notable successes, including winning the District of Columbia and Vermont Republican primaries, making her the first woman to win a Republican presidential primary and the first woman to win a state in a GOP primary.(en.wikipedia.org) However, she suspended her campaign on March 6, 2024 after heavy Super Tuesday losses, effectively conceding the race and clearing the way for Trump to secure the nomination.(cbsnews.com)

Because the core claim of the prediction was that Haley would "consolidate centre right politics" and be the Republican nominee in 2024, and the actual nominee was Donald Trump, the prediction is wrong.

politicsgovernment
Pete Buttigieg’s role as Secretary of Transportation will position him to become either a future U.S. vice‑presidential nominee or presidential nominee, and he will emerge as a prominent national political figure (“one of the bright stars”) in subsequent election cycles after 2020.
Pete Buttigieg going on Fox recently. I think he did a masterful job... and then he gets himself this, uh, Secretary of transportation. And I think he's set up to either be the VP or the presidential candidate, uh, in the future. And he's I think he's going to be one of the bright stars.View on YouTube
Explanation

Jason’s prediction has largely played out as described.

  • Buttigieg became Secretary of Transportation and gained national prominence. He was nominated and served as U.S. Transportation Secretary in the Biden administration, becoming the first openly gay Cabinet secretary and a highly visible national figure. (newenglandconstruction.news) His Cabinet role kept him in national media, on major networks, and at the center of high‑profile infrastructure and transportation debates.

  • His DOT role has clearly positioned him as a future presidential or vice‑presidential contender. In the 2024 cycle, Harris’s campaign formally vetted him for vice president; reporting on the 2024 Democratic VP selection notes Buttigieg as one of the serious finalists, and Harris later wrote that Buttigieg was actually her first choice for running mate before she decided a ticket with a Black woman and a gay man might be electorally risky. (en.wikipedia.org) By 2025, multiple outlets describe him as a leading potential 2028 presidential candidate, and his public behavior—national town halls, fundraising network reactivation, and a deliberate media strategy—has been interpreted as laying the groundwork for a future White House run. (politico.com) He has even declined 2026 Michigan Senate and gubernatorial races in part to preserve his 2028 presidential prospects, which strategists explicitly frame as maximizing his path to the presidency. (nypost.com)

  • He is regarded as one of the party’s “bright stars.” Coverage characterizes him as part of the top tier of the Democratic bench for post‑Biden/Harris national leadership, frequently listing him alongside governors and other high‑profile figures as a leading 2028 contender. (reuters.com)

While Buttigieg has not yet actually become a presidential or vice‑presidential nominee as of November 2025, Jason’s prediction was that the Transportation Secretary role would set him up for those possibilities and make him a major national figure in subsequent election cycles, not that he would secure the nomination by a specific date. On those terms—elevated national profile, serious VP vetting, and being widely viewed as a likely future presidential candidate—the prediction is best judged as right.

politicsgovernment
Andrew Yang will run for Mayor of New York City in the next New York City mayoral election following this December 2020 recording (i.e., the 2021 NYC mayoral race).
My understanding is he's going to run for mayor of New York.View on YouTube
Explanation

Jason’s prediction was that “Andrew Yang will run for mayor of New York City” in the next mayoral election after the December 2020 recording (i.e., the 2021 race).

After suspending his 2020 presidential bid, Andrew Yang was widely discussed as a potential candidate in the 2021 New York City mayoral election, and he filed paperwork with the NYC Campaign Finance Board to raise money for a mayoral run on December 23, 2020. (en.wikipedia.org)

On January 14, 2021, Yang formally launched his campaign for Mayor of New York City, releasing an announcement video and public statement and joining the crowded Democratic primary field for the 2021 NYC mayoral election. (cbsnews.com) He then actively campaigned, raised several million dollars, and ultimately conceded the race after the June 22, 2021 Democratic primary. (cnbc.com)

Because Yang did, in fact, run in the next New York City mayoral election following the December 2020 podcast, Jason’s prediction is correct.

politicsgovernment
In 2021, there will be a significant recall effort in California targeting state-level leadership (implicitly Governor Gavin Newsom), substantial enough to be characterized as a “big recall.”
this is why there could be a big recall next year in California.View on YouTube
Explanation

Rationale

  • The prediction was that in 2021 there would be a “big recall” in California targeting state-level leadership, implicitly Governor Gavin Newsom.
  • In reality, a statewide gubernatorial recall effort against Gavin Newsom did qualify and proceed in 2021:
    • A recall petition against Newsom was filed in February 2020; signatures were gathered through March 2021.
    • On April 26, 2021, the California Secretary of State announced that organizers had met the threshold of 1,495,709 verified signatures required to trigger a recall election (ultimately 1,719,943 valid signatures, about 13.8% of the 2018 vote). (en.wikipedia.org)
    • The recall was officially certified and the California gubernatorial recall election was held on September 14, 2021, a statewide contest involving millions of voters and 46 replacement candidates. (en.wikipedia.org)
    • Newsom ultimately survived the recall, with about 61.9% voting “No” on removing him, but that does not negate the fact that there was a large, formal recall election. (en.wikipedia.org)

Given that a large-scale, formally qualified statewide recall election of the sitting governor indeed occurred in 2021, the prediction that there could be a “big recall next year in California” is accurately borne out by events.

Conclusion: The prediction is right.

politicstech
In 2021, the U.S. Congress will hold additional high‑profile public hearings in which major tech CEOs are grilled in a similar, highly theatrical manner to the 2020 hearings referenced.
there's going to be more of it next year.View on YouTube
Explanation

Multiple events in 2021 match sacks’s prediction that Congress would hold more high‑profile, theatrical hearings grilling major tech CEOs, similar to the 2020 hearings.

Key confirming example:

  • On March 25, 2021, the CEOs of Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg), Google (Sundar Pichai) and Twitter (Jack Dorsey) testified before two House committees in a widely covered hearing titled “Disinformation Nation: Social media’s role in promoting extremism and misinformation.” News coverage explicitly described the session as a marathon, six‑hour hearing where lawmakers “grilled” the CEOs over their platforms’ role in the January 6 Capitol attack and the spread of misinformation, with protesters outside the Capitol using giant cardboard cutouts portraying the CEOs as rioters—a clear sign of its theatrical, highly public nature. (theguardian.com)

Additional reinforcing example:

  • On April 21–22, 2021, a Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee held a high‑profile hearing on app‑store competition, where lawmakers “grilled” Apple and Google representatives over alleged anti‑competitive practices and market power in their app stores. This was widely reported as part of ongoing aggressive congressional scrutiny of big tech. (washingtonpost.com)

These 2021 hearings:

  • Involved major tech companies’ top leaders (including multiple CEOs in March 2021).
  • Were public, heavily covered, and politically charged.
  • Featured confrontational questioning and clear elements of political theater similar to the 2020 big‑tech CEO hearings.

Since such hearings did occur in 2021 and fit the described pattern, sacks’s prediction that “there’s going to be more of it next year” was fulfilled.