There’s nothing more irritating in politics than the endless parade of pundits, politicians, and consultants who act as if they can predict the future.
Every election season, the same characters rush to the cameras, declaring with absolute confidence that their side is sure to win—as if they’ve all been handed some secret scroll with the results written down. Spoiler alert: they haven’t.
On ABC’s This Week on Sunday, Nancy Pelosi joined the crystal-ball-wielding crowd, confidently predicting that Democrats will retake the House in the 2026 midterms and that Hakeem Jeffries will be the next Speaker.
“Hakeem Jeffries is ready, he’s eloquent, he’s respected by the members, he is a unifier,” she told ABC’s Jonathan Karl. When asked whether she had any doubts about Jeffries leading the chamber, she didn’t hesitate. “None,” she said.
That’s the Pelosi brand—absolute, unwavering confidence behind a layer of Botox. It sounds decisive, but at this point, it’s mostly theater. She’s just doing what political veterans do best: telling her party what it wants to hear. And let’s face it, that’s what this prediction was.
We’ve heard it all before. Pelosi said almost the same thing last year when she endorsed Kamala Harris after Joe Biden dropped out.
“Politically, make no mistake: Kamala Harris as a woman in politics is brilliantly astute – and I have full confidence that she will lead us to victory in November,” she said at the time.
It was obvious that she was projecting. I mean, come on, no one ever used the word “brilliant” to describe Kamala Harris before. And what ultimately happened? Democrats lost the White House, the House, and the Senate.
Yet, Pelosi is still out there pretending like projecting confidence will assure the result she wants.
It wasn’t just Pelosi caught in fantasyland. The supposedly “objective” experts were right there with her. Allan Lichtman, the historian with his much-hyped “Keys to the White House” prediction model, claimed Harris would cruise to victory. His system had been accurate since 1984, which had so many convinced her victory was inevitable. The problem with his model was that many of the keys were subjective, and when I reassessed them, I discovered it actually predicted a Trump victory.
His “keys” weren’t the problem—his bias was. The man twisted his own model to fit his politics, and it blew up in his face.
And then there was famed Democrat consultant James Carville. In an October 2024 op-ed for The New York Times, Carville didn’t just predict a Kamala Harris victory—he guaranteed it. “America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain,” he wrote. Well, America turned out fine, but not because Carville got it right.
The problem isn’t poor predictions—it’s the arrogance behind them. People in the business of politics live in a bubble that rewards confidence over honesty. They don’t get paid to be right. They get paid to make their side feel hopeful. Pelosi, Carville, Lichtman—take your pick. They’re all part of the same choir, singing as loudly as they can to drown out the sound of political reality.
The same thing happens on the Republican side, too, and it's just as useless.
Could Democrats win back the House next year? Sure. Heck, history is arguably on their side. But there’s no guarantee. Pelosi doesn’t have insider knowledge about how 2026 will shake out. None of these folks do. What they have is a megaphone and a base that demands reassurance. So they deliver it, every time—facts be damned.
If there’s one thing voters should have learned by now, it’s to tune out anyone who swears they know what’s coming. Politics is chaos wrapped in ego. Predictions don’t win elections. Voters do. And if history is any guide, the loudest voices in the pundit class will be just as wrong next time, too.
