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

[Eric the Green]

(02-21-2019, 12:00 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-20-2019, 10:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-20-2019, 06:27 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-20-2019, 03:52 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-20-2019, 11:31 AM)Marypoza Wrote:   
-- 4 real? Bcuz she appears 2 be the DNCs Annointed One 4 next yr

She's high in the pack for sure, but this will be the Dems version of the Sweet 16 outing the GOPpers had last time.  How that plays is hard to predict this early in the process.

--- true. That could change

A lot of these candidates will be shaken out even before the primaries begin, and others after the first 2 or 3, just like the GOPPERS outing last time. But the person whom the DNC "annoints" will not likely be the nominee; that's up to the voters, and that will be especially true from now on, after DNC party reforms, and after much anger over the Bernie vs. Hillary affair. The most likely candidates to be able to defeat Trump have not yet announced; among those who even have a chance, only Bernie has announced.

-- have 2 agree with you here, if the DNC tries 2 fix next yrs primaries it will be screwing itself 7 ways til Sunday. If they have any sense  @ all they will be on their fairest, most impartial behavior

But.. consider this: according 2 you Kamala Harris, the current DNC Golden Child, has a low score.Apparently a very low score.  Didn't the hildabitch have a low score in 2016 while Bernie's was perfect (16-0 or something similar) By your system Bernie should of won the primaries. So either your system sucks or the hildabitch/DNC cheated & l know enough astrology to know your system works just fine

It's like this. The candidates who have the aspects that appeal to Democrats, are not the same candidates and aspects that appeal to the electorate as a whole. With so many independents now, that is even more true today than in the past. Democrats tend to nominate more eggheads and think intelligence and the right policies are important. Candidates too far left or too moderate might not appeal to Democrats. But general election winners tend to be not only more moderate or conservative more-often than Democratic Party nominees, or have more populist appeal beyond the Democratic mainstream in the case of Bernie, the general electorate overall favors candidates with a different set of aspects than those nominated by Democrats. Above all, Democrats often favor candidates who can't inspire confidence, but the electorate as a whole favors skilled candidates who communicate well and appeal to typical American personalities.

I scored Bernie 10-0, and Hillary 9-8, originally, but further research I did altered the scores, and Bernie's is now 14-7, while Hillary's was 9-11. Hillary was also boosted by a probable Jupiter rising. So, Hillary probably had better aspects for winning the Democratic nomination, and the Parties in general tend to nominate candidates closer to the mainstream of their party anyway. Bernie was not officially even a Democrat, and was seen as too far left or not familiar enough to minority voters compared to "Hill." But the other side of the coin is that HAD Bernie been nominated, he would have had a better chance against Trump in 2016 than Hillary did, whose score was lower than Trump's. Originally I scored Trump as 15-4, but his score went down to 9-4.

The new moon before the election also favored the Democrat to win the popular vote in 2016. This time, the incumbent Republican may be favored, with some caveats. But at least Bernie's 14-7 gives him a shot. I'd rather see a candidate who is more of a sure bet on my system though. Even Sherrod Brown is better at 19-8, and Landrieu (16-2) and McAuliffe (11-2) are the best prospects. Biden is another crap shoot (also 14-7). Of course, scores also change a little bit when I know the time of birth, because lunar aspects are important, and the Moon moves fast.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html