Key parts of Jason’s prediction both did and did not line up with what actually happened, and one of his central claims can’t be directly tested.

1. Biden did not remain the Democratic nominee, so “Trump will beat Biden” never occurred as stated.
Joe Biden ran for re‑election, won the Democratic primaries, and secured enough delegates to be the nominee, but on July 21, 2024 he withdrew from the race and endorsed Kamala Harris.(en.wikipedia.org) Because Biden stepped aside before the general election, there was no Biden‑vs‑Trump contest; Trump instead ran against Harris and defeated her.(en.wikipedia.org) That means the specific forecast “Trump will beat Biden in 2024” cannot be directly verified or falsified.

2. The “speed run” / rapid replacement process essentially did happen, but not as a voter‑facing primary.
After Biden’s withdrawal and endorsement, Democrats coalesced around Harris with remarkable speed:

• Within about a day, Harris had enough delegate commitments to clinch the nomination.(people.com)
• The DNC then set up an accelerated virtual roll‑call process (Aug 1–5) to officially nominate her before the in‑person August convention, explicitly to meet timing and ballot‑access concerns and avoid a messy open convention.(theguardian.com)
• Groups like Black Lives Matter criticized this as an elite‑driven, rushed process that bypassed broader voter participation, and even demanded a more open virtual primary—underscoring how compressed and top‑down the replacement process was.(reuters.com)

So, Jason’s broad idea that Democrats would respond to Biden’s weakness with a fast, improvised nomination “speed run” was largely borne out, though it took the form of a rapid delegate realignment and virtual roll‑call rather than a traditional, multi‑candidate primary.

3. Overall assessment

• The election‑outcome claim (“Trump will beat Biden”) hinges on a matchup that never occurred because Biden withdrew; that part is not verifiable.
• The process‑prediction (a rapid, improvised effort to replace or re‑legitimize the nominee) broadly matches what happened with Harris and the DNC’s compressed virtual nomination.

Because part of the prediction is untestable and another part is substantially but not perfectly accurate, the fairest judgment is “ambiguous” rather than clearly right or wrong.