Jiang Xueqin Wrong Predictions: Every Miss, Tracked Openly
Professor Jiang Xueqin has been right more often than wrong — but only a sliver of his record has actually been tested. As of 2026-07-04, this tracker has resolved 20 of his 340 logged predictions: 15 confirmed and 5 wrong, a headline accuracy rate of 75% (confirmed out of confirmed plus wrong). The denominator is small, so the percentage will move. What will not move is the rule that every miss gets listed here in full, with its permanent ID. You can browse every wrong call on one page.
Here are all five.
The five wrong calls
- P002a — Trump picks Nikki Haley as VP (predicted May 2024). Jiang's lead call for the Republican ticket. Trump chose JD Vance instead, an alternative Jiang had also floated — and that one proved correct (P002b). A clean miss on the same event he half-called right.
- P040 — Muhammad Mokhber wins the June 2024 Iranian presidential election (predicted May 2024). Mokhber, a vice president under Ebrahim Raisi, became acting president after Raisi's death in a helicopter crash but did not win the election. Masoud Pezeshkian took the July runoff. Wrong man, same regime.
- P064 — Marine Le Pen's party governs France within three months (predicted June 2024). Called in the wake of Emmanuel Macron's snap election. The National Rally made gains but finished behind the left coalition and never formed a government. The three-month window closed with Le Pen still out of power.
- P072 — A falling out between China and Russia (predicted summer 2025, "very quickly"). Jiang argued the partnership was brittle, with Russian contempt building toward a "godless, materialistic" China. More than a year on, the Sino-Russian alignment has, if anything, deepened. The rupture has not come.
- P017 — Putin declares a nuclear umbrella over Iran (predicted May 2024). This one deserves its own section.
Right outcome, wrong reason
P017 is the most instructive miss on the board. Jiang predicted that Vladimir Putin would publicly extend a nuclear umbrella over Iran — warning that "if anyone uses nuclear weapons, I will respond with nuclear weapons" — and that this threat, not restraint, would keep the US-Iran war from going nuclear.
The threat never came. Putin made no such declaration. Yet the second half of the forecast did hold: nuclear weapons were not used in the fighting, exactly the outcome anticipated in P016. Jiang's outcome was correct; his mechanism was not. In a binary tracker, the call on the mechanism is what gets scored wrong. A forecaster who lands on the right answer for the wrong reason is still, strictly, half-wrong — and that is how it is recorded.
Why list every miss
Most prediction sites bury their subject's failures. The logic here runs the other way. A tracker that shows only the hits is an advertisement; a tracker that shows every miss is a measurement. Jiang's credibility as a forecaster, and ours as the people grading him, depends on the misses being impossible to hide. Each wrong call above carries a permanent ID, a timestamp, and a link back to the lecture it came from.
Search for Jiang Xueqin's failed predictions, or his Predictive History misses, and the honest answer is the same: they exist, there are five so far, and they are listed in full. Concealing them would be the only real failure.
The number that matters more than the misses
Five wrong out of twenty resolved is not the headline. The 304 predictions still sitting in the not_yet and unverifiable columns are. As of 2026-07-04, the overwhelming majority of Jiang's calls — drawn from 171 source lectures, 170 of them transcribed — are waiting on events that have not finished unfolding: the long tail of the Iran war, China's next moves, the shape of a post-war Middle East. The 75% figure is a snapshot of a small, early sample. Most of the record, the part that will decide whether Jiang is a gifted forecaster or merely a confident one, has not been graded yet.
When those calls resolve, this page regenerates with the new count. The misses stay listed. That is the point.
Browse all tracked predictions · Accuracy analysis · All blog posts