I’m fairly good at predicting the outcomes of presidential general elections. In 2012, I predicted the outcomes in 48 states and got all of them right; in 2016, I predicted the outcomes in all 50 states and got 48 of them right.

Party primary outcomes, not so much. Early on in 2008, I expected Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination. In 2016, I didn’t expect Trump to be the GOP nominee.

This year, I thought I was on track when I very tentatively predicted that the Democratic ticket would be Biden or Warren in the top slot, likely with Warren for VP if Biden won the presidential nomination.

But now this:

Ben Shapiro summed up the two nights of Democratic presidential debates by declaring Sen. Kamala Harris'[s] “moment” has ended and predicted a two-person race between former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

One of my many argument/claim sorting shortcuts for both issues debates and political predictions is:

THE DEFAULT STARTING ASSUMPTION SHOULD ALWAYS BE THAT BEN SHAPIRO IS WRONG

No, he’s not always wrong.

But assuming he’s going to be right is like sticking a bunch of monkeys in a room with a stockpile of amyl nitrite and a movie camera, then betting money that they’ll emerge the next day having created a startlingly true-to-the-original remake of Behind The Green Door.

So what are we looking at here — Williamson/Yang? My confidence in Biden, Warren, or Biden/Warren is shattered.

Imported from the original KN@PPSTER