Donald Trump won the November 5, 2024 U.S. presidential election over Kamala Harris, 312–226 in the Electoral College and by about 1.5 points in the popular vote, so the actual outcome was a Trump, not Harris, victory.(en.wikipedia.org)(cfr.org)

However, Jason’s prediction was conditional and uses vague criteria:

1. Trump clause: He said Trump "has a chance of winning if he" adopts a more presidential, non‑bullying, issues‑focused "Trump 2.0" style. In reality, multiple analyses find that Trump’s 2024 rhetoric became more combative and violent over time, with heightened use of dehumanizing and fear‑based language on immigration and culture‑war themes, and voters widely saw him as personally too critical of his opponent.(calonews.com)(en.wikipedia.org)(washingtonpost.com)(pewresearch.org) Since the condition (a notably more restrained, non‑bullying style) did not clearly occur, his conditional statement about that scenario can’t really be tested—yet it’s also extremely weak (“has a chance”), which would be hard to falsify even if it had occurred.

2. Harris clause: He added, “If Kamala goes moderate, I think she’s going to win.” Here both the condition and the outcome are problematic to evaluate. Some coverage described Harris as making an intentional “shift to the center” or running a fairly centrist, reassurance‑oriented campaign, especially on economics and immigration, and highlighted her outreach to figures like Liz Cheney.(thedispatch.com)(axios.com)(indiatoday.in) Other reporting and academic analysis emphasized that she never made “obvious moves to the center,” continued to foreground progressive themes (democracy, social justice, systemic reform), and that Republicans successfully portrayed her as more liberal than she claimed, leaving many voters unsure she was truly moderate.(washingtonpost.com)(frontiersin.org)(liberalpatriot.com) Because reasonable analysts disagree about whether she genuinely “went moderate” in the sense Jason appears to mean, it’s unclear whether his condition was ever met; we only know that the predicted outcome (her winning) did not happen.

Since:

• the Trump clause hinges on a style shift that clearly did not occur and only claimed he would then “have a chance” (a nearly unfalsifiable statement), and
• the Harris clause depends on a contested, degree‑based notion of whether she “went moderate” at all,

we cannot cleanly map any realized scenario to the specific if‑then branches Jason described. The election result is known, but the conditions in his prediction are too vague and disputed to say the prediction as stated was definitively right or wrong.

Conclusion: The prediction’s truth value is ambiguous rather than clearly correct or incorrect.