11-27-2016, 02:16 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-27-2016, 02:43 AM by 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.
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.