There is one thin path for him to win, which is to absolutely shower America with money, uh, close to the election day. So if there is a multi, multi trillion dollar stimulus bill that passes, um, and it literally puts money into the hands of working Americans, especially in the swing states, it could work.View on YouTube
Summary of the prediction
Chamath argued in July 2020 that:
- Trump had “one thin path” to re‑election: a multi‑trillion‑dollar stimulus passed close to Election Day that directly put substantial cash into the hands of working Americans, especially in swing states.
- Implicitly, if such a stimulus did not happen, his chances of winning were very low.
What actually happened
-
Timing and size of stimulus checks in 2020
- The major multi‑trillion package with broad direct payments was the CARES Act (~$2.2 trillion), passed in March 2020, with $1,200 checks to most adults – months before the election, not “close to Election Day.” (cnbc.com)
- The next round of direct stimulus checks (about $600 per person) came in a roughly $900 billion package passed by Congress in late December 2020, after the election had already taken place. (snopes.com)
- Negotiations for additional large pre‑election relief stalled; there was no new multi‑trillion direct‑cash bill enacted shortly before the November 3, 2020 election.
-
Election outcome
- In the November 3, 2020 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden, 306 to 232 in the Electoral College, and by over 7 million votes in the popular vote. (en.wikipedia.org)
Evaluation
Chamath’s claim was effectively conditional:
- If Trump engineered a late, multi‑trillion, swing‑state‑targeted cash stimulus, that was his only realistic path.
- If not, “his chances of winning were very low.”
In reality:
- The specific condition never occurred: there was no late multi‑trillion stimulus with large new checks before the election; only the March CARES Act (early in the pandemic) and then a smaller, sub‑trillion package with $600 checks in December, after the election. (cnbc.com)
- Trump indeed lost re‑election in 2020. (en.wikipedia.org)
Because the absence of a late multi‑trillion stimulus coincided with exactly the outcome Chamath said would follow (Trump having very low chances and ultimately losing), the prediction, understood as a probabilistic/conditional forecast about Trump’s path to victory, matches what happened.
Conclusion
Result: right. The forecast that Trump’s only plausible path required a last‑minute multi‑trillion direct‑cash stimulus — and that without it his chances were very low — is consistent with the observed policy timeline and the fact that he then lost the 2020 election.