Some of these politicians are like racing pundits.
That is, whatever events unfold, they have already given a Delphic style oracle that that was what could happen.
In the racing press you get the phrases like, "probably will be in the frame, will trouble the leaders, will be there or thereabouts,due to run a good race, connections say he will be winning one soon,cannot be easily dismissed " and all the others.
"Precipitation in sight" is a weathermans version.
The equivalent in science is the unfalsifiable
theory — one which no amount of evidence can contradict. A junk theory in other words.
Unfortunately, all scientific theories can be made unfalsifiable in practice by pushing the contradictions away from the core idea(s) and out against the protective shield of ancillary hypotheses and lesser theories.
For example, in Galileo's day if one held the view ('theory') that the planets had no satellites and Galileo said he'd seen some around Jupiter with his telescope, all one had to do was call in question the theory of his telescope and say that all that he were observing was an artefact of his apparatus. Yak yak yak. No end to this game.
And, of course, the vaguer you make your theory the more opportunities there are for dodging hard tests.
The marxist so-called scientific theory of history was just such junk. Freud was up there too.
It seems all fakers play this game.Postscript:
It should be noted, however, that unfortunately things are never simple. Lest one think otherwise, falsifiablilty, in any simple form, is not that good a criterion. Things are always more complicated.
The orbit of Uranus didn't go according to Newton's plan. So was he wrong? No. Adams and Leverrier kept the 'Newtonian faith' and found a way out. They hypothesised a new planet and calculated the mass and orbit it would need to give the so far unexplained perturbations in Uranus's orbit. ["Peturbations of Uranus". Nice expression. Ed.] Bingo! That's how Neptune was discovered. Newton notched up another triumph.
So what then about the anomalous discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century in the precession of the perihelion of Mercury? Should one keep the Newtonian faith again and wait until some sharp-minded scientist finds an explanation? Not in this case. Dump Newton and go with Einstein who explained the discrepancy perfectly, but using his own theory of gravitation. Of course Newtonian mechanics and his universal law of gravitation weren't really that wrong — they just had their limits. Newton's was the limiting case of Einstein's general theory. A rather nice epitaph for it.
Marx and others, however, didn't fare so well. And rightly so. Ignominy is theirs.