12-25-2016, 11:32 PM
(12-09-2016, 06:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: 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 hopingI 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 John Adams (6-7), Theodore Roosevelt (12-15) and James Garfield (8-9).
James Garfield beat Winfield Scott Hancock in 1880. Garfield had a horoscope score of 8-9 and Hancock 9-8 in my latest count. It was the closest election in history by popular vote.
Calvin Coolidge beat John W. Davis in 1924. Coolidge scored 10-9, while Davis scored 8-16. Also running was Robert LaFollette who scored 6-14. Not even close. Neither was the election.
Herbert Hoover beat Al Smith in 1928. Hoover scored 11-11, while Smith scored 4-16. Again, not close. It was a landslide. Hoover went on to lose to FDR in 1932, who had a 21-4 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
Scores revised in this previous post.