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

[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.