The 2024 U.S. presidential election ended up close, not a landslide, which aligns with Sacks’s basic conditional framing (“either Trump in a landslide, or it’s very close”).

What actually happened:

• Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris with 312 electoral votes to 226.
• He won 49.8% of the popular vote vs. 48.3% for Harris, a national popular-vote margin of about 1.5–1.6 percentage points.
• Key tipping‑point states like Pennsylvania were decided by roughly 1.7 points, indicating a narrow underlying contest despite Trump sweeping the battlegrounds.

These figures come from official-style tallies and summaries of the 2024 results, which consistently report Trump’s 312–226 Electoral College win and sub‑2‑point popular‑vote margin. (en.wikipedia.org) Post‑election analyses explicitly characterize 2024 as “close, not a landslide” and warn that calling it a landslide is misleading, pointing to the tight popular vote and small margins in the decisive states. (goodmorningamerica.com) Even Trump‑focused retrospectives describe his victory as “decisive” but “not a landslide,” again emphasizing that the win was solid but not overwhelming in historical terms. (en.wikipedia.org)

Comparing to Sacks’s statement:

• He did not flatly predict that Trump would win in a landslide; he said that, as of that moment, Trump was the only candidate who looked like he could get a landslide.
• He then added: “Otherwise, it’s going to be very close.”
• In reality, no landslide occurred, and the election outcome matches the “very close” branch of his conditional: a narrow national margin and close tipping‑point state, widely described by analysts as a close election rather than a landslide.

Because (1) the race was in fact close in the sense used by election analysts, and (2) no non‑Trump landslide materialized that would contradict his “only Trump could get a landslide” framing, Sacks’s prediction is best judged as right on the main point he was making about the 2024 election’s likely shape.