Predictions are for Suckers. Here are Mine.

If I don't predict, I can't be wrong, but here goes.

Who wins? Who loses? Who knows?

The future is as yet unwritten, says an old saying. But half of the election’s future or so has already been written: on mail-in ballots, in votes that are being cast as I write ... and by the decision others are making to stay home and not vote at all.

I shouldn’t do this, but I’m going to make some predictions anyway.

Why should you trust me?

No special reason, I guess. I don’t have any secret data. But my instincts have been pretty good! For example! I wrote a piece in April 2009 anticipating the Tea Party. I wrote one in May 2011 that anticipated the Occupy movement which arose in September of that year. (On a lighter note: I called the upset Oscar victory in 2006, when “Crash” won instead of the heavily-favored “Brokeback Mountain.” I also got most other major categories right.)

When I joined Bernie Sanders’ campaign as employee #5 or so, that was also based on a prediction—and a hope. People in DC thought I was crazy. But there was something about that campaign back in April 2015—something ineffable and powerful. As I told my late brother John at the time, it felt like watching the Beatles play the Cavern Club six months before Beatlemania.

In August 2016, I wrote that Trump could win and transform American politics. He did both. That prediction was based on “vibes,” too. I called Trump “a bloated, bleached-blond Narcissus transfixed by his own silhouette” and quoted Bob Dylan. “He worships at the altar of a stagnant pool,” the song says, “and when he sees his reflection, he’s fulfilled.”

“Under President Trump,” I wrote that day, “the Oval Office would become a hollow sarcophagus, the vessel for an aging and soul-dead boy king.”

Well, those predictions stand, too.

I’m sure I’ve gotten some predictions wrong, but for the life of me I can’t remember any. Selective recall can be a beautiful thing.

What about now? Honestly, I’m not getting many vibrations this year. Perhaps the zeitgeist has stopped sending its signals. Or maybe my antennae are offline. Grief will do that to a person: in my case, grief for family losses and grief for the victims in Palestine.

One vibration I am getting now is contradicted by the data—and, despite all my “woo-woo” talk, I’m a data analyst at heart. That vibration says:

The election won’t be particularly close. The victor wins by a larger margin than expected.

Probability: 50 percent.

I can’t really justify this one, but I feel it so I’m going to say it: whoever wins will surprise us with their margin of victory.

There is one data point in this vibration’s favor: Retrospective analyses of some recent elections found that a lot of dark money flooded the political ecosystem in the campaign’s closing weeks. Even races that were considered close sometimes broke strongly in one direction or another, probably because dark money that flew below the radar but shifted the outcomes.

And If I’m not “feeling” anything, that may just reflect the sense of groundlessness I’ve felt throughout this campaign.

Prediction: Harris wins.

Probability: 60 percent.

Who got all that money this year? So far, most of it seems to be going to Harris. That may account for some of the late-breaking movement in her favor over the past couple of weeks. It’s also why my 60 percent probability is higher than the 50-50 odds in the media.

Why would the big money go to Harris and not Trump? Her election would avoid the disruptions and chaos of another Trump presidency, largely preserving the status quo. Stability is good for business.

Of course, a 60 percent for Harris means a 40 percent chance for Trump. His “upset” victory in 2016 also benefited from a last-minute surge of dark money, and he still has plenty of billionaires in his corner.

We’ll find out who the billionaires really wanted soon enough.

Democrats lose the Senate.

Probability: 80 percent.

That is a data-driven call. The only way this doesn’t happen—and it is possible—is if a) I’m right that the election isn’t close, and b) the wide margin is for Harris, not Trump. In that case, her coattails could theoretically save the day.

There’s a decent possibility of that, but not a huge one. (20 percent chance? 30 percent? Something like that.) I think big-money interests across the political spectrum would largely prefer a divided government. Barring that, they’d prefer a Republican Congress and President to a Democratic-controlled government.

Republicans keep the House.

Probability: 55 percent.

I think they’ll keep the House of Representatives but, for reasons I can’t articulate, I’m not as certain of that as data and reason (polling numbers, voter interference, etc.) would dictate.

Why give the GOP any edge? Again, follow the money. Big-money interests want the House to push business-friendly (friendlier?) policies under Trump; lobbying groups are writing the legislation now. If Harris wins, they’d prefer to keep the government divided and paralyzed.

(Here’s an interesting post-election research project: Find out how many big-money contributors have donated to Harris’s campaign and to  congressional Republicans.)

Here are a few predictions about policy:

Social Security and Medicare avoid serious budget cuts.

Probability: 40 percent.

A Republican brings means a high risk of benefit cuts. At a minimum, Republicans will presumably undo the Medicare improvements in the Inflation Reduction Act. GOP leaders have also indicated they’d like to cut Social Security benefits: by raising the retirement age even higher, changing cost-of-living calculations, and other maneuvers. Their most ambitious plan would replace Medicare with an all-private program that costs seniors more with every passing year.

Divided government might prevent significant reductions. But past Democratic presidents have been tempted to offer “entitlement” cuts in bipartisan deals like Obama’s attempted “Grand Bargain.” Big donors want those cuts, so don’t count them out.

A Democrat sweep, however unlikely, could mean marginal improvements to Medicare, with no cuts to Social Security. I don’t foresee any hope of expanding Social Security, although it’s needed. Democrats embraced expansion in 2020 but have ignored since then.

Medicare cuts have been easier to pass without voter pushback because they often happen in the little-understood provider payment area. Given the Democrats’ incremental success in addressing Medicare drug costs, however, it’s hard to see them surrendering much here.

The probability of Medicare For All—an idea once embraced by Kamala Harris and many Senate Democrats—isn’t even on the table.

Ukraine will have to accept a bad deal.

Probability: 80 percent.

The real question is, How bad a deal will Ukraine have to accept? A GOP sweep probably means a quick end to most military support. Even in a split government, Trump would want a quick deal. Since he hasn’t shown much concern for Ukrainian territorial integrity, that deal would be especially hard on Ukraine.

A Harris victory would probably mean a cutback in support, too, despite campaign rhetoric. The administration’s recent supplemental spending package included $60+ billion in wartime support for Ukraine but Democrats privately believe that Americans are running out of patience. They also know most experts believe the war is unwinnable for Ukraine without direct US military involvement, which (hopefully) no president would approve.

Some reports suggest that back-channel negotiations between the Biden Administration and Russia have already begun. That seems plausible. Harris would presumably hold out for better terms from Russia than Trump would accept, but any concessions on Ukraine’s part will be painful—and unavoidable.

The only plausible way to prevent the loss of any Ukrainian territory would have been by agreeing to keep NATO weapons out of Ukraine before this war started. Now, best Ukraine can hope for now is a settlement that leaves them a decent amount of territory and includes plebiscites to determine the future of these lands.

That’s a bitter pill to swallow, but the alternative is ongoing war—with the ever-present threat of escalation between two nuclear superpowers. The chance of that, in my view, is roughly 20 percent. That’s too high for comfort, but too low for Ukrainian hope.

There’s precedent for a US sellout, where it encourages other countries to fight its enemies and then abandons them when it becomes expedient (i.e., the Kurds vs. Iraq.)

Palestinians are out of luck.

Probability: 100 percent.

Neither party has shown any willingness to stop the killing. Could Harris do something completely unexpected and “end the war,” as she suggested in Michigan on the final day of her campaign? Theoretically, yes, but it’s doubtful—and the occupation will continue,

The current wave of killing will end, eventually, but probably not until the Israelis wear themselves out—when they are too war-weary, too economically strapped, and too worried about the mass exodus of its citizens to keep going.

By then, however, Gaza will be a smoking ruin and the West Bank will be terrorized by roaming gangs of flamboyantly violent settler thugs—like “A Clockwork Orange,” but with Jaffa oranges.^[1]

Actually, that’s happening already. But things will get worse, as both parties keep sending arms and providing diplomatic cover. The horror will end, forever—when the occupation collapses, as it surely will. Unfortunately, by then, it will be too late for the martyred innocent.

History will judge the US harshly for failing to debate Israel/Palestine policy in this election.

Probability? Also 100 percent.

---

^[1] The proper name for that fruit is shamouti; that’s the name it was given by the Arab farmers who created it. The least we can do is acknowledge those master cultivators—and refuse to buy this delicacy from their occupiers. The best shamouti is one that’s accompanied by the sweet taste of freedom.