It's in the "stars" (predicting by astrology and other means)

[Eric the Green]

I heard the historian scholar crow about his successful prediction from the 13 keys. But he always fails to mention that he was wrong in 2000; he had predicted the popular vote winner successfully that year, but not who assumed the presidency. The media never calls him on this either. By that measure, he was wrong this year too, and I was right.

[Galen]

(11-12-2016, 11:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I heard the historian scholar crow about his successful prediction from the 13 keys. But he always fails to mention that he was wrong in 2000; he had predicted the popular vote winner successfully that year, but not who assumed the presidency. The media never calls him on this either. By that measure, he was wrong this year too, and I was right.

If its who I think it is then he claims an eighty-five percent success rate which is way better than you have ever been.

[Eric the Green]

He claims 100% success rate, that's the point. I never hear him mention his failure in 2000, except very briefly and no-one calls him on it. If you listen carefully though, he claims that he predicted "the popular vote" in every election. By that measure, he missed the electoral vote in 2000 and the popular vote itself in 2016.

It makes it easy in our age when the difference occurs more often, to claim victory if either the electoral or the popular vote predicted correctly means you are going to be right either way.

The new moon method I invented predicts the popular vote, and I have used it since 2004 without fail. 100%. The record of my methods is shown in my article, which I'm sure you didn't read. It shows how often my methods have worked going back into the 18th and 19th centuries.

[naf140230]

I just thought of this. One of the articles on your website said "People may be disillusioned, causing them to retreat again into conservatism." That might have just happened with this election.

[Eric the Green]

Yes it might. The 2010s are part of a 30-year pattern of conservative policies, despite Obama's brief one-year reign.

I can't deny that I was wrong about this election, about who would win in November. And I can't deny that my bias might have contributed to my error. There's certainly no doubt that I am biased, and it's not always easy to put it aside.

Astrologers disagree about Hillary Clinton's birthtime, and they disagreed about who would win too. I chose the birthtime that was most advantageous for her to win, using the patterns that I saw that had some empirical basis and had mostly worked in the past, as opposed to other patterns that astrologers mention that I found not to be consistent over time.

I have to admit, even so, that the birthtime I chose, which is the most-accepted one, still seems to fit her life and personality better than the others. But we have no birth certificate, so it's all based on hearsay and conflicting testimony from Hillary herself.

If the birthtime I used was wrong, though, then it invalidated the patterns I used to predict her victory.

The parallel to 1908 was compelling, and I cannot explain how Taft was elected and Hillary was not, unless in fact Hillary does not have Jupiter rising in her chart. Without that, her horoscope score is definitely inferior to Donald Trump's. And now that the electoral college has become the way that Republicans win elections, and the new moon method's record is a much tighter indicator if it is seen ONLY as predicting the popular vote (as it did in 2000 and 2016, as well as 1888 and 1876), the main factor in Hillary's favor (the new moon before election) did not indicate victory in the electoral college, but only the prevailing sentiment and vote of the people of the USA.

So I was wrong, but critics like Galen put no attention on my many correct predictions over the years. Another poster here named Teddy challenged me by listing his pick of the most significant events of the last few decades. I had predicted half of them. That's likely more than any prophet of any kind. The big things, I got right, most of the time. Those like Galen who say that because I got this one wrong, I never get anything right, forget that I also predicted here Trump's nomination and Bernie's strong run long before anyone else did.

So where my presidential election method goes from here, is not clear at all. If the Democrats nominate a weak candidate like Tim Kaine, they will lose in 2020. If Bernie Sanders runs and is nominated, they have a shot if Trump screws up his term. I can't say that he will win.

Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions every 20 years are a factor in 2020. Since 1841 they have indicated a change in the party in power in the zero year, an assassination or death in office of the person elected then, or both.

But since the assassination/death pattern appears to be over, the relevant statistic is that 7 out of 11 times, and 8 out of 13 since 1800, it has indicated a change in the party in control of the White House. That is far from a reliable pattern, but it could be a factor. No doubt however, the momentum and direction of the Establishment and world events shifts radically upon this conjunction, every time.

[Eric the Green]

It does happen sometimes in my calculations that I make an error, and sometimes I have to revise my figures back to what they originally were. I had written of a parallel between the elections of 1908 and 2016, and there was something of a parallel between the types of candidates. But, I had originally scored William Jennings Bryan at 6-6, which was not better than William Howard Taft. For some reason I looked at Bryan's aspects again earlier this year, and came up with 8-3. It was a clerical error, not a deliberate one. But it played a role in my prediction that I thought Hillary and Trump has the same scores as Taft and Bryan respectively, and Taft and Hillary both had Jupiter rising, and so Hillary would win. (an aspect is an angle between two of the planets and lights, such as a conjunction, a 90 degree square, etc.; part of a mutual cycle between each pair of the 10 lights and planets)

But I am revising the scores of the aspects in all the candidates' horoscopes. That's because I had factored in a Hillary win, just for convenience; but now a few aspects will gain or lose a point by going from being part of a winning to a losing candidate's horoscope AND vice-versa. And now there's the wrinkle that there's an outside chance that the results will be overturned and I'll have to put the scores back the way they were! It's a lot of work but it's a fun hobby, especially if I'm able to use it to predict elections.

In the process of doing this, I today discovered that my revision of Bryan's horoscope was wrong and that I had been about right before; 6-5, or 5-5 if one of the aspects he has in common with Hillary is demoted by a point.

So there was no numerical parallel with 1908, and Taft was easily predicted to beat Bryan if I had made a prediction back then based on today's horoscope scoring system, using just the points for the aspects in their charts.

I still think the chart I used for Hillary is correct. For one big thing, in her chart the Descendant or setting angle, which represents partners and marriage, is 22 degrees Taurus, which is Bill Clinton's Moon degree. And in Bill's chart, the Moon represents women in his life.

So, she still probably has Jupiter rising, and Saturn transiting her first house, which I used to predict her victory. But, her score is going to go down a bit and Trump's is going to rise a bit, assuming his victory holds up. And since her chart is rated "conflicting and unverified" by the astrology experts who judge these things, because of uncertainty about her birth time, I am on safe ground in throwing out the basis of my prediction, at least officially. In other cases with such charts with uncertain birth times, I have not used them (I can still use most of the aspects; using a 12 PM local time, they usually don't change that much during half a day). Those who used less systematic methods to predict Trump's victory have a point. Astrological predictions are sometimes very intuitive, and most astrologers are not empiricists, like I sorta am. As much as an astrologer can be empirical, anyway.

Since Trump's horoscope score is likely to rise again, by a little bit anyway, bringing it closer to my original estimate using my older system, it looks like Marypoza was right to go by it. It further looks like he will be hard to beat in 2020. The new moon before election predicts the popular vote. In cases where the electoral vote differed, the new moon predicted the popular vote winner. That happened again this year. In 2020, it predicts that the incumbent party will win the popular vote, as it did for 2016. It may not be too likely that it will either fail, or that the Democrats will win the Electoral Vote. And it will take a candidate with a score at least as high as Sanders', and maybe higher, to justify a prediction that Trump's opponent might win.

I have already written in my new book the possibility that a Republican might win in 2016 (Trump or Bush, I thought), because of their high horoscope scores (Bush's score has been drastically reduced since then), and then get re-elected in 2020. But the congressional elections of 2022, I predicted, would make him a mere figurehead, since the Democratic victory would be so massive. Then the Democrats would regain the White House in 2024 (according to the new moon indicator of the popular vote, FWIW). After that though, now things have switched, and my prediction that the Democrats would hold it for most of the years after that, no longer holds. After 2024, it will take a reversal of the new moon method for the Democrats to stay in power in 2028 and most of the time beyond.

That happens once in a great while. In 1988, the horoscope score of Bush over Dukakis was so lopsided, that the new moon indicating the challenging party would win did not hold true. So when the indicators conflict, a balanced decision needs to be made--- or else, rely on intuition and haphazard theoretical indicators with no empirical basis. And in these situations, one safe prediction is that the election will be very close.

And there's the possibility that the prediction will be altered because the country, the system and/or the major parties will be very different by the end of the 4T in 2028-29.

[Eric the Green]

I have not finalized my revised candidate horoscope scoring system, and eliminated all the slight counting errors I tend to make, but it's safe to say Trump's score will improve. I'm not fully sure how much yet, but it might well go up to 9-3. That's a percentage score like what he had before on my older system, and it's hard to beat. That's on top of the new moon indicator that says the GOP will win the popular vote in 2020. I was not wrong about that indicator in 2016; Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million votes. Republicans are the ones who can more-likely win the electoral college and lose the popular vote; not the Democrats. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, that likely freezes out the Democrats. So my tentative prediction for 2020 is that Trump will be re-elected. Subject to revision as we get closer to the election.

But I factored in a Hillary win in 2016 to the candidate scoring system, and that was my mistake. Who wins or loses each year can shift the whole data base by a little bit. So scores will shift a bit. In such close elections as 2016 was, with close horoscope scores between the candidates, my slight counting errors can affect my predictions too. Hillary's scores will probably go negative, including all the new data based on the fact that she lost the electoral college instead of won it (that's a double shift I have to make this year). So if her candidate score was negative, she could not have won the election against Trump.

Bernie Sanders' score seems to be going down too. It doesn't look like he has a better score than Trump now.

[Eric the Green]

Also note that my revisions to the points given to a few of the aspects in Hillary's and The Donald's charts are also based on another extensive win-loss tally that I took after the election of the aspects and which candidates who have which.

[Ragnarök_62]

Eric The Green Wrote:I have not finalized my revised candidate horoscope scoring system, and eliminated all the slight counting errors I tend to make, but it's safe to say Trump's score will improve.

IOW, Eric is saying his predictions are just like economists.

Quote: I'm not fully sure how much yet, but it might well go up to 9-3. That's a percentage score like what he had before on my older system, and it's hard to beat. That's on top of the new moon indicator that says the GOP will win the popular vote in 2020. I was not wrong about that indicator in 2016; Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million votes. Republicans are the ones who can more-likely win the electoral college and lose the popular vote; not the Democrats. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, that likely freezes out the Democrats. So my tentative prediction for 2020 is that Trump will be re-elected. Subject to revision as we get closer to the election.

Here's a batch of economists who are  predicting a recession for 2017.  

Quote:But I factored in a Hillary win in 2016 to the candidate scoring system, and that was my mistake. Who wins or loses each year can shift the whole data base by a little bit. So scores will shift a bit. In such close elections as 2016 was, with close horoscope scores between the candidates, my slight counting errors can affect my predictions too. Hillary's scores will probably go negative, including all the new data based on the fact that she lost the electoral college instead of won it (that's a double shift I have to make this year). So if her candidate score was negative, she could not have won the election against Trump.  ...

Here's an idea that will work. Do what the weathermen do and just assign a probability that your prediction[s] will happen.
Like this

Of utmost service -

-Rags.

[Galen]

(12-05-2016, 07:09 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Quote:But I factored in a Hillary win in 2016 to the candidate scoring system, and that was my mistake. Who wins or loses each year can shift the whole data base by a little bit. So scores will shift a bit. In such close elections as 2016 was, with close horoscope scores between the candidates, my slight counting errors can affect my predictions too. Hillary's scores will probably go negative, including all the new data based on the fact that she lost the electoral college instead of won it (that's a double shift I have to make this year). So if her candidate score was negative, she could not have won the election against Trump.  ...

Here's an idea that will work. Do what the weathermen do and just assign a probability that your prediction[s] will happen.
Like this

Given his past history, zero percent seems to be the correct answer.

[naf140230]

(12-02-2016, 03:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have not finalized my revised candidate horoscope scoring system, and eliminated all the slight counting errors I tend to make, but it's safe to say Trump's score will improve. I'm not fully sure how much yet, but it might well go up to 9-3. That's a percentage score like what he had before on my older system, and it's hard to beat. That's on top of the new moon indicator that says the GOP will win the popular vote in 2020. I was not wrong about that indicator in 2016; Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million votes. Republicans are the ones who can more-likely win the electoral college and lose the popular vote; not the Democrats. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, that likely freezes out the Democrats. So my tentative prediction for 2020 is that Trump will be re-elected. Subject to revision as we get closer to the election.

But I factored in a Hillary win in 2016 to the candidate scoring system, and that was my mistake. Who wins or loses each year can shift the whole data base by a little bit. So scores will shift a bit. In such close elections as 2016 was, with close horoscope scores between the candidates, my slight counting errors can affect my predictions too. Hillary's scores will probably go negative, including all the new data based on the fact that she lost the electoral college instead of won it (that's a double shift I have to make this year). So if her candidate score was negative, she could not have won the election against Trump.

Bernie Sanders' score seems to be going down too. It doesn't look like he has a better score than Trump now.

May I suggest looking at this YouTube video and doing the horoscopes for the people mentioned in it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBbQByoFa2M

[Eric the Green]

My revised article with my latest scores is up:
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Regarding potential candidates mentioned in the video linked above:

Michelle Obama: 7-6 not too good.

Oprah Winfrey scores 10-5; no Jupiter rising.
Mark Zuckerberg 13-8

Not bad, but probably not scores that could successfully challenge The Donald (9-4) or Ivanka (17-0).

Chris Rock: 12-10

But there's one guy he passed over from the entertainment world: Seth Meyers. I did his numbers, and so far it looks good: 21-5. In this new Trumpworld, where being an entertainer is the chief qualification for president, Seth could give The Donald a run for his money!

TV star Ronald Reagan had 21-6.

Yeah, run Seth run!

Maybe it's worth a look at some of Trump's other nemeses from the TV humor late-night world. John Oliver, for starters. And some of the others. And they would offer something else that Trump lacks: knowledge and intelligence. (well John Oliver can't run since he wasn't born in the USA, and has only a 7-7 score anyway)

Maybe we should close down the White House and just run the country from a TV studio.

[Eric the Green]

(12-05-2016, 07:09 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Eric The Green Wrote:I have not finalized my revised candidate horoscope scoring system, and eliminated all the slight counting errors I tend to make, but it's safe to say Trump's score will improve.

IOW, Eric is saying his predictions are just like economists.

Quote: I'm not fully sure how much yet, but it might well go up to 9-3. That's a percentage score like what he had before on my older system, and it's hard to beat. That's on top of the new moon indicator that says the GOP will win the popular vote in 2020. I was not wrong about that indicator in 2016; Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million votes. Republicans are the ones who can more-likely win the electoral college and lose the popular vote; not the Democrats. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, that likely freezes out the Democrats. So my tentative prediction for 2020 is that Trump will be re-elected. Subject to revision as we get closer to the election.

Here's a batch of economists who are  predicting a recession for 2017.  

Quote:But I factored in a Hillary win in 2016 to the candidate scoring system, and that was my mistake. Who wins or loses each year can shift the whole data base by a little bit. So scores will shift a bit. In such close elections as 2016 was, with close horoscope scores between the candidates, my slight counting errors can affect my predictions too. Hillary's scores will probably go negative, including all the new data based on the fact that she lost the electoral college instead of won it (that's a double shift I have to make this year). So if her candidate score was negative, she could not have won the election against Trump.  ...

Here's an idea that will work. Do what the weathermen do and just assign a probability that your prediction[s] will happen.
Like this

Of utmost service -

-Rags.

NO doubt people here will jump on my one major (although partial) failure since I've been posting here, and deservedly so--- but forget the dozens of major correct predictions I've made here. So it goes with the T4T world. The T4Ters have a very hard time admitting that their saeculum exactly equals the Uranus orbit during the history of the colonies and USA. Even the authors stated that by definition the saeculum is 84 years = the orbit of Uranus. And the meaning of Uranus was defined by astrologer/philosopher Dane Rudhyar as based on the length of a human life = how S&H define the saeculum. But, that doesn't stop most people HERE from ignoring this crystal-clear link of the S&H cycle to astrology.

But, for sure, I am less confident about the economy with Trump at the helm. Still, I don't see recession until 2018, but it will probably be worse now than it would have been before Trump grabbed the White House (he likes to grab things, doesn't he? --courtesy plaudits to Seth for that one).

My record is probably miles better than "economists," let alone the "pundits" who almost always get things wrong.

[Eric the Green]

How about Michael Moore for president?





part 2:
https://youtu.be/K_nciu0mBfo

score: 16-7

[Eric the Green]

Donald Trump's horoscope

http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?wgid=...vp--C440iw

Why he is the way he is, and why he had the chance to win.

In my old system I rated his horoscope score as 15-4. When I saw it, I knew he was going to be in the running and might win, and said so soon after he announced. Horrible thought though it was, It's clear from his chart that he appeals to Americans, and can get away with almost anything because the people like his personality, style and approach to campaigning.

The most outstanding feature of his chart is Jupiter trine Uranus. It is one of the highest-scoring aspects, especially for its consistency in the charts of those who win elections and don't lose them. Not every candidate who has this aspect wins, by any means, but the probabilities are better than for most other aspects. The aspect-expert Charles Carter dubbed Jupiter trine/sextile Uranus as indicating "a popular hero." Trump is certainly that. Some other candidates with this aspect include FDR, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Harry Truman, Ulysses S. Grant and George Washington; plus Jill Stein, Robert F Kennedy and Ted Kennedy (JFK had the square), Barry Goldwater, Gary Hart, and Pat Robertson. In Trump's chart, the trine (90 degree angle; a fortunate, expansive, easily-flowing aspect) is almost exact, and made stronger by its alignment with his Sun and Moon, chief significators in a chart.

Everyone knows he has Mars in Leo rising, but it's also sextile to his Sun in talkative Gemini, which enhances the heroic energy of his rising Mars. Being also trine to his Moon in enthusiastic, big-thinking and restless Sagittarius, his Mars energy flows freely and abundantly, but also with very little restraint, and readily expressed in his aggressive and arrogant personality (Mars rising). Other candidates with combative Mars rising in their horoscopes include Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Lyndon B Johnson (and Andrew Johnson too), William McKinley, Winfield Scott ("old fuss and feathers"), and the testy and irritable John Adams. Also notable for Mars rising is the former wrestler and navy seal Jesse Ventura (Mars and Uranus rising together in conjunction).

But even though he won with this Sun-Mars sextile in his chart, due to the evidence I actually reduced its power from 2 to 1 points in my scoring system. He also has a beneficial Venus-Saturn conjunction, which can indicate integrity and dedication, but in his case in Cancer indicates his nationalist protectionism and xenophobia, and his acquisitiveness. Nevertheless, it adds 2 points to his positive score (now estimated at 9 points total) because it's a close strong aspect in his chart, as is his Jupiter-Uranus trine (worth 3 points to his score). His Moon sextile Jupiter is worth a point, plus I added Mercury square/opposition Neptune to the list of favorable aspects, partly because Trump's victory boosted its score and mostly because it did well on my new tally system. His strong Mercury square to Neptune is famous among astrologers for indicating his intuitive, instinctive mind rather than rational, his ability to connect with the masses (Neptune) with his voice and communication (Mercury), and his perpetual scheming and plotting. So that's worth 2 points.

His negative 4 points are derived from only 2 aspects, which together with his Mars rising indicate all his famous faults and obstacles to his victory. That's all there was, because whatever stupid and horrible things he did and said, it turned out right for enough American voters in the right places. He said he could stand out on Fifth Ave and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose any voters. People just buckle under to his audacious Mars in Leo and his populist heroism of Jupiter-Uranus.

The most characteristic of his unfavorable aspects in his Venus-Jupiter square. Because of his victory and the trend of the tally numbers overall, I boosted this aspect to 2 negative points on my system, even though Venus and Jupiter are supposed to be "beneficial" planets. But it has always been negative on my system, and Charles Carter mentioned how much its natives like to show off and be the center of attention. Indulgence and restlessness are its keynotes. Trump certainly fits this to a T, literally. So he gets two negative points for this, even though it's not close. But it is significant in his chart beyond this, because it along with the Moon rules all the other planets. Saturn configured with it could potentially restrain this aspect, but it also boosts its insecurity.

His other negative aspect I actually reduced in power from 2 to 1 point on my system, because of the overall trend; it helped that it didn't stop Trump, but it also didn't stop Hillary, who also has it. That's the Moon-Uranus opposition or square. In Trump's chart it's part of his Sun-Moon-Uranus-Jupiter configuration. It indicates unstable popularity, changing moods, hyper-sensitive emotions and unconventional approaches and personalities. That certainly fits both Trump and Hillary Clinton. Since it's so strong in his chart, that makes 2 points for a total of negative 4. On the positive side, natives with this Uranus-Moon aspect can be very inventive and innovative, with an ability to "feel" outside the box of conventional opinion.

His Sun-Moon opposition, together with his Jupiter-Saturn square, show the two-sidedness of his personality. Will and feelings conflict. He changes his mind at the drop of a hat, and is full of opposing personality drives and contradictions. Compared to earlier times, Sun opposition or square Moon has become much-more and increasingly common among recent presidents (from JFK to Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Trump), and it's my theory that this reflects the divided condition of the nation they lead.

[Eric the Green]

(12-08-2016, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: How about Michael Moore for president?





part 2:
https://youtu.be/K_nciu0mBfo

score: 16-7

What Michael was talking about:

[Ragnarök_62]

(12-07-2016, 07:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: NO doubt people here will jump on my one major (although partial) failure since I've been posting here, and deservedly so--- but forget the dozens of major correct predictions I've made here. So it goes with the T4T world. The T4Ters have a very hard time admitting that their saeculum exactly equals the Uranus orbit during the history of the colonies and USA. Even the authors stated that by definition the saeculum is 84 years = the orbit of Uranus. And the meaning of Uranus was defined by astrologer/philosopher Dane Rudhyar as based on the length of a human life = how S&H define the saeculum. But, that doesn't stop most people HERE from ignoring this crystal-clear link of the S&H cycle to astrology.



But, for sure, I am less confident about the economy with Trump at the helm. Still, I don't see recession until 2018, but it will probably be worse now than it would have been before Trump grabbed the White House (he likes to grab things, doesn't he? --courtesy plaudits to Seth for that one).

My record is probably miles better than "economists," let alone the "pundits" who almost always get things wrong.

Uh,no

Eric Wrote:In my old system I rated his horoscope score as 15-4. When I saw it, I knew he was going to be in the running and might win, and said so soon after he announced. Horrible thought though it was, It's clear from his chart that he appeals to Americans, and can get away with almost anything because the people like his personality, style and approach to campaigning.

1. A "new" system indicates that the old one is flawed.  That  means a self admission of less than perfection.  There is also the weasel word, "might" which translates into there's a "chance of" .  Weathermen phrase their predictions as "there is a chance of snow/rain".  That means you yourself use weathermen terminology and all one has to do is point it out to you.   Also of note is the usage of numbers like "15-4" as a point system.  So, with The Donald, we have numbers of 15 for vs. 4 against.  I can easily use that to come up with a chance by adding the numbers to get 19. So the chance of The Donald winning = 15/19. That's a 79 percent chance of The Donald winning.
(Like why else would you even type those numbers down if they meant nothing?)

IIRC Lincoln used a "four score and 7" , so I suppose we can split the difference there.

[Ragnarök_62]

(12-08-2016, 09:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: How about Michael Moore for president?





part 2:
https://youtu.be/K_nciu0mBfo

score: 16-7

What Michael was talking about:

Michael is pretty massive. How many moons does he have orbiting him?  I'm sure he used his own moons to make that prediction Eric.

[Eric the Green]

Hey, if the massive style appeals to Americans, as it evidently does, then Michael Moore is the perfect fit; doncha know?

[Eric the Green]

(12-08-2016, 09:35 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(12-07-2016, 07:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: NO doubt people here will jump on my one major (although partial) failure since I've been posting here, and deservedly so--- but forget the dozens of major correct predictions I've made here. So it goes with the T4T world. The T4Ters have a very hard time admitting that their saeculum exactly equals the Uranus orbit during the history of the colonies and USA. Even the authors stated that by definition the saeculum is 84 years = the orbit of Uranus. And the meaning of Uranus was defined by astrologer/philosopher Dane Rudhyar as based on the length of a human life = how S&H define the saeculum. But, that doesn't stop most people HERE from ignoring this crystal-clear link of the S&H cycle to astrology.



But, for sure, I am less confident about the economy with Trump at the helm. Still, I don't see recession until 2018, but it will probably be worse now than it would have been before Trump grabbed the White House (he likes to grab things, doesn't he? --courtesy plaudits to Seth for that one).

My record is probably miles better than "economists," let alone the "pundits" who almost always get things wrong.

Uh,no

Uh, yeah, and so obviously.

Quote:

Eric Wrote:In my old system I rated his horoscope score as 15-4. When I saw it, I knew he was going to be in the running and might win, and said so soon after he announced. Horrible thought though it was, It's clear from his chart that he appeals to Americans, and can get away with almost anything because the people like his personality, style and approach to campaigning.

1. A "new" system indicates that the old one is flawed.  That  means a self admission of less than perfection.  There is also the weasel word, "might" which translates into there's a "chance of" .  Weathermen phrase their predictions as "there is a chance of snow/rain".  That means you yourself use weathermen terminology and all one has to do is point it out to you.   Also of note is the usage of numbers like "15-4" as a point system.  So, with The Donald, we have numbers of 15 for vs. 4 against.  I can easily use that to come up with a chance by adding the numbers to get 19. So the chance of The Donald winning = 15/19. That's a 79 percent chance of The Donald winning.
(Like why else would you even type those numbers down if they meant nothing?)

IIRC Lincoln used a "four score and 7" , so I suppose we can split the difference there.

That's one way of stating the length of the saeculum, as he was doing PLUS the three additional years of the war he was fighting. And it's the orbital period of Uranus plus three years as well.

My point system is a work in progress, being gradually developed. And yes, I make counting errors, and get more thorough in my research than I was before. I have put a lot of hours into this, you know. Fortunately I can cast my pearls in other places besides here. But, it's at least a repository where I can put out what I am finding out and writing up. And fundamentally this is a website about predictions and cycles. What that means is that it is inherently astrological, although few here realize this.

The pundits almost all thought in fact that Trump could NOT win, so I was miles ahead of almost all of them with my prediction, which I made as soon as I saw his chart-- soon after he declared his candidacy. Early in 2016 I made a definite statement here that he would be the Republican nominee; remember?

You could use the numbers for the candidates that way; why not? The meaning of a score is pretty easy to understand. It's a way of comparing candidates to each other; the better-scoring candidate usually wins; that's the point of the scores; although other methods can also be used to predict the elections, and other considerations enter in. What's more complicated is going through all the data and sorting it out.

Rather than use the numbers to compute the chance of victory, I see it more like a comparison of baseball teams in the standings, using percentages based on their win-loss record. The score of a candidate is like that, comparing each candidate's favorable to unfavorable aspect ratio. The higher the percentage in his or her score, the higher his or her standing as a presidential candidate in the minds and attitudes of Americans.