Condition of the prediction was not met. Sacks’ prediction was explicitly conditional: “if we see a rate hike before the election, I think Biden is toast.” In reality, the Federal Reserve did not raise the federal funds rate at any meeting between the podcast date (April 12, 2024) and the November 5, 2024 election. The Fed held the target range at 5.25%–5.50% through mid‑2024 and then cut rates to 4.75%–5.00% on September 18, 2024, rather than hiking.(federalreserve.gov) Because the rate‑hike condition never occurred, the prediction concerns a counterfactual scenario.

Election outcome: In the actual 2024 U.S. presidential election on November 5, 2024, Republican nominee Donald Trump defeated Democratic nominee (and sitting vice president) Kamala Harris; the presidency shifted from Democrat Joe Biden’s administration to Trump, a Republican.(en.wikipedia.org) So Biden and his party did lose control of the White House—but this happened without the antecedent (a pre‑election Fed rate hike) ever taking place.

Why this is labeled ambiguous rather than right or wrong: The forecast was about what would happen if the Fed hiked before the election. Since that condition never materialized, we have no empirical way to test whether a rate hike would, in fact, have doomed Biden’s reelection prospects. Treating the statement as true or false would require interpreting it as an unconditional claim about the election, which is not what was actually said. Therefore, even though the Democrats ultimately lost the presidency, the specific conditional prediction can’t be definitively judged as correct or incorrect and is best classified as ambiguous.