04-02-2018, 01:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-03-2018, 11:12 AM by Eric the Green.)
Just a cautionary note again. Donald Trump is a powerful and entertaining speaker. "Everybody likes me," he said, and it's true that for some people he's "likable" and charismatic. He has ardent loyalty from his supporters. Defeating him in 2020 will not be easy. Remember the economy may still be OK, although I predict a recession that would hurt The Donald. But if I am wrong, then people may forgive all Trump's malfeasance because the economy is the main thing. If corporations spend their windfall wisely (a BIG IF), then there could be a trickle.
I would say the odds are just below even if Bernie Sanders is the nominee (horoscope score 14-7), and not that good if it's Biden (13-8). America has never elected a candidate for president who was 78 or 79 years old. Some of the other candidates now mentioned have no chance, such as Elizabeth Warren (8-7) , Cory Booker(6-7) and Kamala Harris (4-14). As we have seen over and over again, the candidate's ability as a candidate will determine the election.
Alan Lichtman's key system is worth paying attention to when the time comes. His record is not perfect though, as he sometimes claims. He was correct to predict Trump would win, but he didn't win the popular vote. But he claims credit for Gore winning the popular vote as a win for his system, even though he lost the electoral college. You can't have it both ways. Nevertheless, it's a historically-based system with a great record.
My horoscope system has a good track record too. The New Moon before the election method is usually correct, and has predicted the popular vote correctly every presidential election year since the 20th century began except 1988, 1968 and 1952. In 2020 it predicts that the incumbent will win the popular vote. However, in 2016 for the first time Uranus square the Ascendant (but not at the Nadir) showed a revolt against the Establishment, and the incumbent party lost. Uranus was also at the Nadir in 1952 when this happened. It will be square the Ascendant again but not at the Nadir in 2020. So, anything could happen. But it's unlikely that the Republican Party could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. That has never happened. When the electoral college provided the winner and conflicted with the popular vote, it was always the Republican who was elected.
So with this scenario, it is critical that the Democratic candidate have a much better horoscope score than Donald Trump does. His score is good, 9-4, but such a score is not a sure thing; he can be defeated, as he almost was by Hillary who had a lower score (but the popular vote indicator on her side). In 1988 the New Moon predicted the incumbent Republicans would lose the popular vote, but George Bush's 14-6 score was far superior to Michael Dukakis' 2-10, and that made the difference. There are only three potential Democratic Party candidates who might have a chance whose score is higher in a significant way than The Donald's: Terry McAuliffe, Mitch Landrieu and Sherrod Brown. As I see it, the Democrats must nominate one of them to have a good chance of beating the entertaining, well-spoken demagogue.
Sherrod Brown is running for re-election in 2018 for Senator from Ohio. His horoscope score is 19-8. 8 negative points is a problem, but his positive score is higher than anyone's among those Democrats who are in a position to run. He would probably poll well in the Rust Belt, at least if he wins re-election, and that's a major asset against the Drump. He is a strong progressive and is against most trade deals.
Mitch Landrieu has the highest score among those who are in a position to run as Democrats, 16-2. There is some buzz for him as a presidential candidate because of his speech regarding removing confederate monuments and his good record as Mayor of New Orleans. He is doing a book tour on the subject of racism and his adventures with the monuments. His likability and skill in speaking and dealing with people is remarkable and well-known. He can appear as both a moderate-liberal and a progressive and get the confidence of both. He has become the leader of the US conference of mayors because the other mayors have confidence in him as a spokesman. Mayor is not a very high position from which to run for president though; nevertheless, he is probably the best choice if he runs.
Terry McAuliffe has a very good 11-2 score, which may be higher if he was born in the morning (I don't know yet), and a good record as governor of Virginia. He also has the confidence of his peers as a leader, having been chosen as leader of the governors. He is very positive, likable and energetic. He is a party insider who boosts other candidates and is a very successful fundraiser; second to none in that respect. His strong link to the Clintons and some of their activities could hurt him with progressives in the primary, but it could also be an asset among others, and despite this he claims to be a progressive and he actually has a record of consistent support for causes. His stock as a candidate rose with the strength of Democrats in his state that he helped to impart in the elections this year. If Landrieu doesn't run or is hampered by his lower status, then McAuliffe is the best choice. He seems likely to run.
I would say the odds are just below even if Bernie Sanders is the nominee (horoscope score 14-7), and not that good if it's Biden (13-8). America has never elected a candidate for president who was 78 or 79 years old. Some of the other candidates now mentioned have no chance, such as Elizabeth Warren (8-7) , Cory Booker(6-7) and Kamala Harris (4-14). As we have seen over and over again, the candidate's ability as a candidate will determine the election.
Alan Lichtman's key system is worth paying attention to when the time comes. His record is not perfect though, as he sometimes claims. He was correct to predict Trump would win, but he didn't win the popular vote. But he claims credit for Gore winning the popular vote as a win for his system, even though he lost the electoral college. You can't have it both ways. Nevertheless, it's a historically-based system with a great record.
My horoscope system has a good track record too. The New Moon before the election method is usually correct, and has predicted the popular vote correctly every presidential election year since the 20th century began except 1988, 1968 and 1952. In 2020 it predicts that the incumbent will win the popular vote. However, in 2016 for the first time Uranus square the Ascendant (but not at the Nadir) showed a revolt against the Establishment, and the incumbent party lost. Uranus was also at the Nadir in 1952 when this happened. It will be square the Ascendant again but not at the Nadir in 2020. So, anything could happen. But it's unlikely that the Republican Party could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. That has never happened. When the electoral college provided the winner and conflicted with the popular vote, it was always the Republican who was elected.
So with this scenario, it is critical that the Democratic candidate have a much better horoscope score than Donald Trump does. His score is good, 9-4, but such a score is not a sure thing; he can be defeated, as he almost was by Hillary who had a lower score (but the popular vote indicator on her side). In 1988 the New Moon predicted the incumbent Republicans would lose the popular vote, but George Bush's 14-6 score was far superior to Michael Dukakis' 2-10, and that made the difference. There are only three potential Democratic Party candidates who might have a chance whose score is higher in a significant way than The Donald's: Terry McAuliffe, Mitch Landrieu and Sherrod Brown. As I see it, the Democrats must nominate one of them to have a good chance of beating the entertaining, well-spoken demagogue.
Sherrod Brown is running for re-election in 2018 for Senator from Ohio. His horoscope score is 19-8. 8 negative points is a problem, but his positive score is higher than anyone's among those Democrats who are in a position to run. He would probably poll well in the Rust Belt, at least if he wins re-election, and that's a major asset against the Drump. He is a strong progressive and is against most trade deals.
Mitch Landrieu has the highest score among those who are in a position to run as Democrats, 16-2. There is some buzz for him as a presidential candidate because of his speech regarding removing confederate monuments and his good record as Mayor of New Orleans. He is doing a book tour on the subject of racism and his adventures with the monuments. His likability and skill in speaking and dealing with people is remarkable and well-known. He can appear as both a moderate-liberal and a progressive and get the confidence of both. He has become the leader of the US conference of mayors because the other mayors have confidence in him as a spokesman. Mayor is not a very high position from which to run for president though; nevertheless, he is probably the best choice if he runs.
Terry McAuliffe has a very good 11-2 score, which may be higher if he was born in the morning (I don't know yet), and a good record as governor of Virginia. He also has the confidence of his peers as a leader, having been chosen as leader of the governors. He is very positive, likable and energetic. He is a party insider who boosts other candidates and is a very successful fundraiser; second to none in that respect. His strong link to the Clintons and some of their activities could hurt him with progressives in the primary, but it could also be an asset among others, and despite this he claims to be a progressive and he actually has a record of consistent support for causes. His stock as a candidate rose with the strength of Democrats in his state that he helped to impart in the elections this year. If Landrieu doesn't run or is hampered by his lower status, then McAuliffe is the best choice. He seems likely to run.