12-09-2016, 06:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2016, 07:18 PM by Eric the Green.)
I know Galen and maybe Taramarie would disagree, and I'm not going to look; and maybe Rags would still quibble. I predicted Hillary would win, and that's my mistake. And I can't deny my bias.
It is ironic that I missed it, because the two astrological systems I rely on and have worked on the most, the point system and the new moon before election method, both were correct. The point system favored (and now even more favors) Trump to win the election, and the new moon predicted that Hillary (representing the party holding the White House) would win the popular vote, and that was correct as well.
I predicted Hillary would win based on a couple of items regarding her horoscope, based on a questionable birth time. But I used it partly because it favored her to win. I was hoping
I still think the birth chart I chose to use is correct, based on the preponderance of evidence as described here:
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Clinton,_Hillary
But now with my additional checking and tallying, as well as switching Trump's and Clinton's aspects between winner and loser, I come up with an actual negative score for Hillary, and no candidate has ever won with a negative score unless the opponent had an equal or more negative score. So, it's partly in hindsight because I factored a Hillary win into how I scored the aspects in their charts within my database, which I should not have done.
Yes, Eric makes mistakes. But ironically, the systems I discovered did not. So, they will be useful going forward.
The only three candidates to win with a negative score were all Republicans.
James Garfield beat Winfield Scott Hancock in 1880. Both had a horoscope score of 8-9 in my latest count. It was the closest election in history by popular vote.
Calvin Coolidge beat John W. Davis in 1924. Coolidge scores 10-11, while Davis scores 8-17. Also running was Robert LaFollette who scores 6-14. Not even close. Neither was the election.
Herbert Hoover beat Al Smith in 1928. Hoover scores 11-12, while Smith scores 5-12. Again, not close. It was a landslide. Hoover went on to lose to FDR in 1932, who has a 21-5 score. Another landslide.
So, in my new count, Donald Trump has 9-4 and Hillary 9-11. She lost. In my previous version this year, it was Trump 8-4, Hillary 12-9. Last year, using my 2004 system, I had it as Trump 15-4 vs. Hillary 9-8.
My revised article is up.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
It is ironic that I missed it, because the two astrological systems I rely on and have worked on the most, the point system and the new moon before election method, both were correct. The point system favored (and now even more favors) Trump to win the election, and the new moon predicted that Hillary (representing the party holding the White House) would win the popular vote, and that was correct as well.
I predicted Hillary would win based on a couple of items regarding her horoscope, based on a questionable birth time. But I used it partly because it favored her to win. I was hoping
I still think the birth chart I chose to use is correct, based on the preponderance of evidence as described here: http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Clinton,_Hillary
But now with my additional checking and tallying, as well as switching Trump's and Clinton's aspects between winner and loser, I come up with an actual negative score for Hillary, and no candidate has ever won with a negative score unless the opponent had an equal or more negative score. So, it's partly in hindsight because I factored a Hillary win into how I scored the aspects in their charts within my database, which I should not have done.
Yes, Eric makes mistakes. But ironically, the systems I discovered did not. So, they will be useful going forward.
The only three candidates to win with a negative score were all Republicans.
James Garfield beat Winfield Scott Hancock in 1880. Both had a horoscope score of 8-9 in my latest count. It was the closest election in history by popular vote.
Calvin Coolidge beat John W. Davis in 1924. Coolidge scores 10-11, while Davis scores 8-17. Also running was Robert LaFollette who scores 6-14. Not even close. Neither was the election.
Herbert Hoover beat Al Smith in 1928. Hoover scores 11-12, while Smith scores 5-12. Again, not close. It was a landslide. Hoover went on to lose to FDR in 1932, who has a 21-5 score. Another landslide.
So, in my new count, Donald Trump has 9-4 and Hillary 9-11. She lost. In my previous version this year, it was Trump 8-4, Hillary 12-9. Last year, using my 2004 system, I had it as Trump 15-4 vs. Hillary 9-8.
My revised article is up.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html