In July 2020, Sacks argued that Trump’s only real path to reelection was to convince voters that a Biden victory meant extreme outcomes like tearing down national monuments and destroying capitalism; otherwise, he was likely to lose.

What actually happened:

• Trump’s 2020 campaign rhetoric did center on portraying Biden and the “radical left” as a threat to American heritage and way of life. In his July 3, 2020 Mount Rushmore speech, Trump warned of a “left-wing cultural revolution” and a “merciless campaign to wipe out our history” and to tear down statues and symbols of figures such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt.(en.wikipedia.org) He repeatedly claimed Democrats would “destroy” the suburbs and that “no one will be safe in Biden’s America,” framing Biden’s election as existentially dangerous.(wral.com) This closely matches the kind of framing Sacks described.
• Despite this messaging, Trump lost decisively: Biden won 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232 and took the popular vote by about 7 million votes (51.3% to 46.8%).(en.wikipedia.org) There is no evidence that a large share of the broader electorate was persuaded that Biden’s election would literally mean the destruction of monuments or capitalism; Biden was generally perceived as a mainstream Democrat.

The falsifiable core of the normalized prediction is that, absent successfully convincing a large share of voters of such extreme consequences, Trump was likely to lose. In reality, Trump did not achieve that level of persuasion and he did lose the 2020 election. The portion of the quote saying that if Trump could truly convince the public of those stakes, he would win is counterfactual and therefore untestable, but the directional forecast about his likely defeat without that success was borne out by events.

Given that the election outcome aligned with the prediction’s main probabilistic claim, and that Trump’s strategy did in fact hinge on the kind of framing Sacks identified, this prediction is best judged as right overall.