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

[Eric the Green]

I know you are all waiting anxiously for my revised horoscope scoring system for the USA presidents and candidates. I've about finished and have some interesting news items.

It's true that Bernie loses his perfect 10-0 score in the new system. But now he's at 14-5, and still has a higher score than all the candidates of the 2016 race except, believe it or not, George Pataki at 14-4, who never had a chance in his Republican Party. I never really understood how George Pataki could have a good score, but then, I am not a Republican from New York.

3 new aspects that score negative for Bernie were added that basically say that he gets stuck in a rut with his ideas, and gets carried away with his thoughts of transforming things. But, such is as we expect. Most of the potential Democratic candidates today don't look that great; none match Bernie's score. So I'm not sure whom the Democrats can field in the future. Almost all modern presidents (since FDR) have had astronomically high scores in the new system. Obama, for example, now scores 18-3! So did Dubya, and Bill scored 19-2. Even Lincoln only had 16-2, and he and James K Polk had the best scores in the old days.

My new system is much more consistent, with almost all presidents having positive scores and beating their opponent's score. With the Saturn Return factor added, only four of the 57 contests were anomalous. Even in those 4 cases, 3 of the losers went on to become president later. 

The Saturn Return factor is that (since 1824) if Saturn returns to its position in a candidate's horoscope during the election or in the next 4 years (when the candidate is about 55-59 years old), that candidate loses, refuses to run again, dies, or suffers a calamitous presidency that ruins him. All current candidates are clear of this factor. If Andrew Cuomo had run this year, he would have faced a Saturn Return. His score is better now than it was, by the way. He may be one of the few options the Democrats have in the near future. My hopes for Corey Booker just went kaput.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton now has a positive score, if still a weak one: 12-9. But, the other news is that Donald Trump is not as strong in the new scoring system. Now 8-4, it's still higher percentage-wise than most of the Republican field in 2016. Only Pataki and Carly Fiorina have higher scores. Jeb Bush's score went down to 9-11, and Cruz and Kasich have even more dismal scores than they had before. But Hillary can almost catch up with Trump in her scoring percentage with the added, unofficial points for Jupiter, Mercury and Venus rising on her ascendant. Most candidates with Jupiter rising in their charts (including her husband) have won their elections. And no candidate with so low a score (8) on the positive side of the equation has been elected since Herbert Hoover (who had 8-12, now the lowest % score ever to win).

I will post the new revised article soon. Best wishes, and keep the star currents flowing. As above, so below!

[TnT]

Correlation does not prove causation. That's almost a cliche contained in most debates today, though a surprising number of people adhere to only their own, experienced, anecdotal evidence as convincing.

However, correlation IS a necessary component of proving causation. That is, if A causes B, B must necessarily be correlated with A.

The trouble with Astrology is that not only is there NO causation, there is not even any reliable correlation. One has to invoke confirmation bias on steroids to get to correlation - that is, one has to totally discard all instances of non-correlation, and include only instances of correlation.

[Eric the Green]

(05-12-2016, 01:07 PM)TnT Wrote: Correlation does not prove causation.  That's almost a cliche contained in most debates today, though a surprising number of people adhere to only their own, experienced, anecdotal evidence as convincing.

However, correlation IS a necessary component of proving causation.  That is, if A causes B, B must necessarily be correlated with A.

The trouble with Astrology is that not only is there NO causation, there is not even any reliable correlation. One has to invoke confirmation bias on steroids to get to correlation - that is, one has to totally discard all instances of non-correlation, and include only instances of correlation.

Thanks for your points. I have some more interesting correlations to give you guys. But first, as a reply; it's true that correlation does not prove causation. It is only a statistical trend, and past is not always prologue. So it's a tool, but far from perfect. But it's better than most psychics, and certainly most pundits, for predicting elections. I would say the record of the pundits for predicting elections is probably worse than chance! Just compare the things I've predicted in recent elections to what they missed. I even beat the guys at Nate Silver's outfit!

Remember, astrology itself is a tool for understanding a different conception of causation. Philosophers and scientists alike have cast strong doubt on the usual notion of efficient, mechanical causation. To think that things are caused because one thing pushes another physically from the past, is completely inadequate to explain anything, especially human behavior. Synchronicity, resonance, intention, and the influence of formal archetypes (as used in generations theory for example) are among the terms for causation that are alternatives to mechanical, efficient causal explanations.

Confirmation bias does not need to inject itself very much in a strict statistical study of which candidates had which astrological aspects. I also very much took account of which aspects correlated to elected presidents, and which ones did not (correlated to losing elections); AND vice-versa. So I covered the bases well on that one! I also included factors such as which presidents never lost elections, and which ones were never nominated, along with which aspects were closer to the exact angle (and thus more significant, according to astrological theory).

(Aspects refers to the angles formed between planets and sun/moon in the course of their mutual cycles; conjunction (alignment), opposition, square (90 degrees), trine (120 degrees), etc.)

---

A major factor relevant to this year's election, are planets rising in the candidates' chart. This is an additional factor that is not included in the raw horoscope score. But when a planet is rising (on the eastern horizon at the time of birth), it imprints itself (by resonance, not mechanical causation) on the individual's personality for life.

It's easy to spot, for example, that I have Uranus rising. This imparts inventiveness, eccentricity, rebelliousness, etc. Many people have no planets rising (Bernie Sanders is one example), and some people have more than one (Bill Clinton had 4).

The main factor for 2016 is which planets are rising in the charts of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary has Jupiter rising, plus Mercury and Venus. The Donald has Mars rising, which almost anyone can spot because it's so obvious.

Jupiter rising imparts optimism, confidence and generosity. The record of candidates in general elections who had Jupiter rising is awesome. Those who won and never lost who had Jupiter rising include:

James K Polk, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S Grant, Lyndon Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton.

Those who won once, and then lost only because they ran against each other and split their party's vote: Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft ("smiling Bill" as he was known). 

All of these presidents also had positive scores in the horoscope aspect system, except Teddy Roosevelt whose score was tied.

Only one major party candidate lost who had Jupiter rising. That was Walter Mondale. He also had a negative horoscope score.

Third party candidates rarely win, but it's especially rare (it never happens) when they have dismal scores. John Breckinridge (ran against Lincoln in 1860, representing the slave states) had Jupiter rising, but that was not enough to offset the worst score for any candidate ever-- which he had. George Wallace also had Jupiter (and Mars) rising, and a dismal horoscope score. He also did well in the former slave states.

It is true that I don't know the birth times of all the candidates, especially losing ones from early times, and current ones; so there may have been other losing candidates who had Jupiter rising. I know most of the charts of major party nominees since Lincoln, however; and some earlier ones.

Donald Trump's campaign style is a lot like George Wallace's. They both have Mars in Leo rising. Mars rising represents a personality style that is belligerent and controversial. It's record of success leans slightly negative, at least. Those who lost who had Mars rising, as far as I know, include:

John Adams, Winfield Scott ("old fuss and feathers"), Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford, Al Gore, and Adlai Stevenson. Goldwater's Mars rising in the "extremist" sign Scorpio was reflected in his famous phrase that lost him the election: "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!"

Those who won elections who had Mars rising: again, John Adams, plus William McKinley, Lyndon Johnson (he had 5 planets rising showing his larger than life and overwhelming personality), and Bill Clinton.

Ronald Reagan's birth time is uncertain, but he might have had either Jupiter or Mars rising.

[Eric the Green]

Here's the statistical pattern for candidate scores for general elections now.
(score is # of aspects I have deemed positive, vs. those I have deemed negative for winning presidential elections, based mostly on which candidates had which aspects in their horoscopes. The strongest positive and negative aspects get 2 or more points, and close aspects get an extra point.)


Elections before 1932:

1789-92: George Washington 17-4, unopposed

1796: John Adams 9-5, Thomas Jefferson 7-0

1800: Thomas Jefferson 7-0, John Adams 9-5

1804: Thomas Jefferson 7-0, Charles Pinckney 6-14, Burr 6-9

1808: James Madison 11-8, Charles Pinckney 6-14

1812: James Madison 11-8, DeWitt Clinton, 9-12

1816: James Monroe 6-4 U, Rufus King 6-9

1820: James Monroe 6-4 U, John Quincy Adams 7-3

1824: J Q Adams 7-3*, Andrew Jackson 11-3**, Henry Clay 6-13

1828: Andrew Jackson 11-3, J Q Adams 7-3

1832: Andrew Jackson 11-3, Henry Clay 6-13*

1836: Martin Van Buren 7-3, William Henry Harrison 14-8 U

1840: W H Harrison 14-8 U, Martin Van Buren 7-3*

1844: James K Polk 21-2 J, Henry Clay 6-13

1848: Zachary Taylor 10-5 J, Lewis Cass 6-15

1852: Franklin Pierce 13-14, Winfield Scott 8-21

1856: James Buchanan 13-6, John C. Fremont 9-8 SN, Millard Fillmore 12-5*

1860: Abraham Lincoln 16-2 J, Stephen A Douglas 13-18, John Breckinridge 2-23 J, John Bell 4-15

1864: Abraham Lincoln 16-2 J*, George McClellan 13-13

1868: Ulysses S. Grant 16-4 J, Horatio Seymour 6-12*

1872: Ulysses S. Grant 16-4 J, Horace Greeley 4-12

1876: Rutherford B. Hayes 10-3, Samuel J. Tilden 3-12

1880: James A Garfield 8-11, Winfield Hancock 9-11*

1884: Grover Cleveland 13-9, James G. Blaine 8-10*

1888: Benjamin Harrison 14-9*, Grover Cleveland 13-9

1892: Grover Cleveland 13-9*, Benjamin Harrison 14-9**

1896: William McKinley 12-3, William Jennings Bryan 6-6 U, SN

1900: William McKinley 12-3*, William Jennings Bryan 6-6 U, SN

1904: Theodore Roosevelt 12-12 J, Alton B Parker 17-8

1908: William H. Taft 13-9 J/U, SN, William Jennings Bryan 6-6 U, SN

1912: Woodrow Wilson 13-7**, Theodore Roosevelt 12-12 J, William H. Taft 13-9 J/U, SN*

1916: Woodrow Wilson 13-7**, Charles Evans Hughes 5-8*

1920: Warren G Harding 15-10*, James Cox 10-7

1924: Calvin Coolidge 12-10, John W. Davis 10-17, Robert LaFollette 8-12

1928: Herbert Hoover 8-12, Al Smith 5-10*

Elections from 1932 to 2012:

1932: Franklin D Roosevelt 18-6 U, Herbert Hoover 8-12*
1936: Franklin D Roosevelt 18-6 U, Alf Landon 11-19
1940: Franklin D Roosevelt 18-6 U*, Wendell Willkie 6-9
1944: Franklin D Roosevelt 18-6 U, Thomas Dewey 10-4 SN
1948: Harry Truman 16-0, Thomas Dewey 10-4 SN
1952: Dwight Eisenhower 17-8, Adlai Stevenson 7-19

1856: Dwight Eisenhower 17-8, Adlai Stevenson 7-19*
1960: John F Kennedy 13-6, Richard Nixon 17-6
1964: Lyndon Johnson 10-6 J*, Barry Goldwater 19-9** (he had Mars in Scorpio rising, with inharmonious aspects: the perfect symbol of his stubborn "extremism")
1968: Richard Nixon 17-6*, Hubert Humphrey 11-4**, George Wallace 2-6 J (+ Mars rising)
1972: Richard Nixon 17-6, George McGovern 10-12
1976: Jimmy Carter 14-3, Gerald Ford 14-4
1980: Ronald Reagan 19-5, Jimmy Carter 14-3*
1984: Ronald Reagan 19-5 Walter Mondale 11-13 J/U*
1988: George H W Bush 15-4, Michael Dukakis 2-12*
1992: Bill Clinton 19-2 J, George H W Bush 15-4, Ross Perot 7-11
1996: Bill Clinton 19-2 J, Bob Dole 13-20
2000: George W Bush 18-3, Al Gore 12-7
2004: George W Bush 18-3*, John Kerry 5-8 (his score was not as strong in the revised system)
2008: Barack Obama 18-3, John McCain 15-14
2012: Barack Obama 18-3, Mitt Romney 4-10 U, SN

Best scores of any nominee: Harry Truman, 1948 (16-0), James K Polk, 1844 (21-2). Worst score: John Breckinridge, 1860 (2-23 J). Lowest score by a winning candidate: Herbert Hoover, 1928 (8-12). Highest score by a losing candidate: Jimmy Carter, 1980 (14-3), felled by a Saturn Return to Ronald Reagan (19-5). Carter had beat Gerald Ford (14-4) in 1976. In all 57 elections, only 3 winners had a negative horoscope score (.05%) By contrast, 35 losers had a negative score (55% of 63). 18 losers had a positive score, but 12 of them were also winners in other elections.

Here's how the pattern stacks up. Since 1932, out of 21 winners of presidential elections, only 3 had lower scores on this system than the loser: JFK (1960), LBJ (1964) and Reagan (1980) (13.6%). In all 57 presidential elections in US history through 2012, only 11 winners had lower scores than their losing opponents (19.3%). 46 had higher scores (80.7%). 

J = candidate also has Jupiter rising in his/her horoscope; U = Uranus rising; could well be positive factors. SN = Saturn at the Nadir in the birthchart, likely a negative factor. *candidate had Saturn Return; **candidate had Saturn Return before his opponent did. This indicates obstacles to getting elected or to surviving the term intact.

For all 57 elections in history through 2012, of the 11 losers who had higher scores than the winners, only 4 of them did not have a Saturn Return coming to block them. That's only 4 out of 63 losing candidates who had higher scores than their opponents, without any Saturn Return, or 0.6%. These were Thomas Jefferson in 1796, John Quincy Adams in 1820, Alton B. Parker in 1904, and Richard Nixon in 1960. 3 of these went on to become president later.

Theodore Roovevelt was an amazing fellow. He may have been the only candidate to transform himself, beat the odds, and beat the swords in his chart into plowshares for himself and the country.

Conclusion: most of the time, the losing candidate had a lower score than the winner, and/or a Saturn Return coming in current election year or the next 4 years.

---

Next, here's the list of recent candidates and their scores.

Republican potential or actual candidates 2012-2016 (or later):
Newt Gingrich, 9-8 SN
Rick Santorum, 6-14
Rick Perry, 11-11
Michelle Bachman, 12-11
Herman Cain, 9-10
Buddy Roemer, 10-9
Ron Paul, 15-8
Jeb Bush, 9-11
Chris Christie, 15-23
Mitch Daniels, 15-15
Mike Huckabee, 12-11
John Boehner, 10-13
Ted Cruz, 3-12 U
Paul Ryan, 10-12
Marco Rubio, 13-7
Bobby Jindal, 13-12
Rand Paul, 11-10
John Thune, 10-10*
Scott Walker, 9-11
Peter King, 7-8
John Kasich, 2-14
Ben Carson, 6-6
Rob Portman, 14-8
Sam Brownback, 9-9
Kelly Ayotte, 13-9
Lindsay Graham, 2-4

Carly Fiorina, 16-6

Donald Trump, 8-4 (Mars rising)

Jim Gilmore, 10-18

George Pataki, 15-4

Sarah Palin, 5-5

George P. Bush, 6-7

Nikki Haley, 9-16

Highest scores with no Saturn return: Donald Trump 8-4, Carly Fiorina 16-6, Marco Rubio 13-7, George Pataki 14-4

Democratic potential or actual candidates 2012-2016
Hillary Clinton, 12-9 J
Martin O'Malley 12-20
Joe Biden 13-7
Elizabeth Warren, 9-6
Bernie Sanders, 14-5
Jim Webb, 12-6
Zephyr Teachout, 5-9
Joe Manchin, 7-7
Kirsten Gillibrand, 6-15
Andrew Cuomo, 12-6*
Cory Booker, 4-4
Brian Schweitzer, 10-7
Howard Dean, 5-11
Tammy Baldwin, 11-6
Janet Napolitano, 13-6*
Mark Warner, 7-8
Richard Blumenthal, 10-5
John Hickenlooper, 6-11
Jan Schakowski, 11-10
Bob Casey, 5-10*
Rahm Emmanuel, 13-12*
Jack Markell, 12-7*
Dan Malloy, 8-8
Joe Kennedy III, 6-6
Duvall Patrick, 7-6
Amy Klobuchar, 6-7*
Tim Kaine, 12-8*
George Clooney, 9-14
Donald Berwick, 10-5
Russ Feingold, 12-17
Jason Carter, 10-4
Wendy Davis, 6-24
Joe & Julian Castro, 11-10
Terry McAuliffe, 11-4*
Bill DeBlazio, 10-19
Gavin Newsom, 7-4
Jerry Brown, 4-8

Lincoln Chafee, 14-9

Michelle Obama, 6-8

Sherrod Brown, 24-11
Al Franken, 9-7

Best score, with no Saturn return: Bernie Sanders, 14-5, Jason Carter, 10-4, and Sherrod Brown, 24-11

*Saturn return due between 2016 and 2020

Some major Independent/3rd party candidates:
Ross Perot, 8-11
Gary Johnson (Libertarian), 12-11
Ralph Nader (Green, Independent), 6-10
John Anderson, 11-6

Jill Stein (Green), 15-4
Sanders, see Democrats

Potential:

Mike Bloomberg, 7-5

Jesse Ventura, 15-9 U+Mars rising

Some past candidates not nominated:

Robert F Kennedy, 15-14

Ted Kennedy, 7-15

Edmund S Muskie, 9-8

Gary Hart, 10-15 U

Rudy Guiliani, 9-11

John Edwards, 11-9 U

Dennis Kucinich, 10-8

Howard Dean, 5-11 U

Wesley Clark, 9-17

Eugene McCarthy, 11-5 U

[Ragnarök_62]

(05-12-2016, 01:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Quote:I know you are all waiting anxiously for my revised horoscope scoring system for the USA presidents and candidates. I've about finished and have some interesting news items.

Why sure, with baited breath.

I

Quote:3 new aspects that score negative for Bernie were added that basically say that he gets stuck in a rut with his ideas, and gets carried away with his thoughts of transforming things. But, such is as we expect. Most of the potential Democratic candidates today don't look that great; none match Bernie's score. So I'm not sure whom the Democrats can field in the future. Almost all modern presidents (since FDR) have had astronomically high scores in the new system. Obama, for example, now scores 18-3! So did Dubya, and Bill scored 19-2. Even Lincoln only had 16-2, and he and James K Polk had the best scores in the old days.
...

There's one new "product" eric can sell for $.

Quote:The Saturn Return factor is that (since 1824) if Saturn returns to its position in a candidate's horoscope during the election or in the next 4 years (when the candidate is about 55-59 years old), that candidate loses, refuses to run again, dies, or suffers a calamitous presidency that ruins him.

Ut oh, Obama's gonna get nailed.  He turns 55 this year.

Quote:Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton now has a positive score, if still a weak one: 12-9. But, the other news is that Donald Trump is not as strong in the new scoring system. Now 8-4, it's still higher percentage-wise than most of the Republican field in 2016. Only Pataki and Carly Fiorina have higher scores. Jeb Bush's score went down to 9-11, and Cruz and Kasich have even more dismal scores than they had before. But Hillary can almost catch up with Trump in her scoring percentage with the added, unofficial points for Jupiter, Mercury and Venus rising on her ascendant. Most candidates with Jupiter rising in their charts ...

And

Quote:The main factor for 2016 is which planets are rising in the charts of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary has Jupiter rising, plus Mercury and Venus. The Donald has Mars rising, which almost anyone can spot because it's so obvious.

Jupiter rising imparts optimism, confidence and generosity. The record of candidates in general elections who had Jupiter rising is awesome. Those who won and never lost who had Jupiter rising include:

Wow, Rags is a special snowfake.   Astrodienst sez and if I read the chart right there are 6 planets between the AC thingie and the MC thingie as such:

Sun/moon  in Taurus:
Mars in Aries.
Jupiter/Chiron in Pisces
Saturn in Aquarius.

Quote:I will post the new revised article soon. Best wishes, and keep the star currents flowing. As above, so below!

I await that also.

[MillsT_98]

I still don't understand, how can the general election be down to practically just Clinton and Trump, yet they have lower horoscope scores than Sanders?

[Kinser79]

(05-12-2016, 09:00 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: I still don't understand, how can the general election be down to practically just Clinton and Trump, yet they have lower horoscope scores than Sanders?

Simple.  Eric's system is flawed.  Mostly because it is based on astrology, but being developed by Eric doesn't help it.

[Galen]

(05-13-2016, 01:06 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-12-2016, 09:00 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: I still don't understand, how can the general election be down to practically just Clinton and Trump, yet they have lower horoscope scores than Sanders?

Simple.  Eric's system is flawed.  Mostly because it is based on astrology, but being developed by Eric doesn't help it.

Good summation except that you have understated your case.  His system, like Eric the Obtuse, is completely divorced from reality.

You can tell his real confidence level in astrology by noting that he has not tried to win the James Randi prize.  If astrology worked so well then winning a million dollars would be easy.

[Eric the Green]

(05-12-2016, 09:00 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: I still don't understand, how can the general election be down to practically just Clinton and Trump, yet they have lower horoscope scores than Sanders?

No, that's a good question. Astrology is one tool, but it's not the only one in a good prophet's toolshed. Predicting human behavior can never be a perfect science; there's always a flaw. What Galen doesn't understand, is that there's always an uncertainty factor.

Sanders, as he himself keeps pointing out, started at 2% in the polls and almost caught up with Hillary. Having greater recognition, status and establishment support is a lot for any candidate to overcome who has almost none of that. So, Sanders' horoscope score helps explain, by this thesis, that he came so far. And, the test of a prophet is predictions coming true. I never predicted Sanders would be nominated, but that he would run a strong campaign. That was even before he began his campaign that I said this. This is exactly what has happened.

Another similar example was the 1988 Democratic primary. If Democrats only knew then what I know now, that Michael Dukakis had one of the lowest candidate scores in history, by any system or reckoning, maybe they would have picked someone else. But who else was there, that year? I thought Richard Gephardt looked like a better choice at the time, in 1988. But he does almost as dismally as Dukakis now on my system. Jesse Jackson had a much better score; 9-5 I think. But like Bernie, he was coming from way out of the mainstream and the establishment. He also had no political experience except as a black activist and motivational speaker. Considering the odds against him, he did pretty well. But no-one could have believed he would actually be nominated, and he couldn't have defeated George Bush either.

By the same token, in my new system (though not in my older one), Carly Fiorina should have won HER party's nomination, going strictly by the numbers. But her name recognition and even her status as a celebrity cannot compete with Donald Trump, who has a good score too. Carly moved up in the debates because of her performance, and Cruz chose her as his would-be running mate. Pretty good for a fired tech exec and failed senate candidate. Trump beats the score of all the other Republican candidates, however, except poor George Pataki.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein has the best score of all the candidates, 15-4 (that used to be what I thought Trump's score was). But few think that, despite being a great candidate, a Green Party nominee can win the general election.

There are other astrology indicators too. Don't forget that Hillary has Jupiter rising. That can be very powerful for success.

Also, the highest scoring candidate in the primaries doesn't always get nominated. If you look at the list of general election candidates scores, some of the losing candidates had very low scores; a primary opponent in a few of those cases had a higher score. It's pretty rare, but it does happen. In 2012 almost all the Republican candidates had low scores, but Romney was picked because it was his turn. Going by the score alone, the Republicans should have picked Ron Paul. But that wasn't going to happen; he was too far out of the mainstream of his party, and too politically inexperienced. Congressmen don't get nominated. Ron Paul's score reflects the fanatical devotion that he is able to generate among his young libertarian followers. Bernie's score reflects something similar. And they both have done better in national polls than the nominees of their party.

Another factor where both Bernie and Hillary trump Trump, but Hillary may trump Sanders, I will mention below. That's the connection to the spirit of the times, or the generational zeitgeist, social mood, etc., indicated by the saecular/generational planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. You may recall that my main point in this forum is that Uranus' orbit = the archetypal saeculum length of 84 years. Hillary has a better connection than Sanders, because for Hillary the connection is just starting, while for Sanders it is at its peak now.

---

Here is a part of an article I recently wrote that might bother the likes of JDG and Classic Xer, if they put any credence in astrology:

The Spirit of the Times: Uranus, Neptune and Pluto

Another connection I found was very interesting, however. From the time of Teddy Roosevelt, who launched the USA's career as a world power able to make progressive reforms, until the reign of Ronald Reagan, who helped end the Cold War that had kept us so involved in the world, but also turned our nation away from the progress that TR and his cousin FDR had launched, the outer three planets connected our presidents to the zeitgeist, or spirit of the times. ALL 14 out of the 14 presidents between and including TR and Reagan experienced a visit of Uranus, Neptune and/or Pluto over one of their most personal indicators, the Sun, Moon or Ascendant, within orb of a conjunction and in the same sign, sometime during their time in office or on the campaign trail. This put them in touch with the spirit of the times and the thrust of world progress, and were called upon to serve this higher calling. Plus, JFK had a special posthumous connection, as Uranus and Pluto joined together exactly on his Moon in Virgo 2 years after his death, showing how his revolutionary work lived on in the efforts of his successors.

After Reagan, and probably because of the direction he took the country, the next 3 presidents didn't have this connection; not either President Bush, nor Bill Clinton. This indicates what we all know; that these 3 recent presidents failed to lead us toward the high potential that lies within the spirit of these times.

Note however that Reagan may not have had this connection either. It is based on a birth time of about 4 AM with a Sagittarius Ascendant, which would have connected him to Uranus and Neptune transits during his 2 terms. However, this birth time is uncertain. Note also that Herbert Hoover just barely had Neptune transiting over his Sun in Leo when he ran for president; but then lost it once he entered the White House and the Depression hit.

None of the Republican candidates who ran in 2016, except possibly the pragmatic underdog John Kasich (whose Moon in Capricorn is now being contacted by Pluto), give us this key connection; this tap well and direct line to the higher Spirit flow. Romney has a connection now, which might inspire him to run as an alternative to Trump. But the situation is different for the Democrats. Both Bernie Sanders, whose Moon-Mars conjunction in activist Aries (the sign of the happy warrior) is being visited by revolutionary Uranus, and Hillary Clinton, whose sympathetic Moon in Pisces is now getting connected to visionary and compassionate Neptune, have the opportunity to get us back on track, IF we elect one of them. And since Barack Obama was also connected to Neptune through his Ascendant, (which we now know, thanks to Trump's pressure on him to release his birth certificate), Hillary is right that she will continue the work that Obama started. In fact, Jupiter and Chiron (the centaur asteroid called “the wounded healer”) joined Neptune very close to Obama's Ascendant in Aquarius in December 2009-- just before the health care reform often named after him was passed. Because I used that conjunction to successfully predict that Obamacare would pass, among other successful predictions I had made, I decided to write this book.

I hope that any future presidents we elect will keep us “on the road again” to world peace and progress. It might be worth looking at future candidates' charts to see which of them are up to the task. They will be-- IF they have these kinds of connections to the current positions of these three creative and transcendental planets that represent humanity's genius and progressive, communal spirit.

[naf140230]

(05-12-2016, 01:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I know you are all waiting anxiously for my revised horoscope scoring system for the USA presidents and candidates. I've about finished and have some interesting news items.

It's true that Bernie loses his perfect 10-0 score in the new system. But now he's at 14-5, and still has a higher score than all the candidates of the 2016 race except, believe it or not, George Pataki at 14-4, who never had a chance in his Republican Party. I never really understood how George Pataki could have a good score, but then, I am not a Republican from New York.

3 new aspects that score negative for Bernie were added that basically say that he gets stuck in a rut with his ideas, and gets carried away with his thoughts of transforming things. But, such is as we expect. Most of the potential Democratic candidates today don't look that great; none match Bernie's score. So I'm not sure whom the Democrats can field in the future. Almost all modern presidents (since FDR) have had astronomically high scores in the new system. Obama, for example, now scores 18-3! So did Dubya, and Bill scored 19-2. Even Lincoln only had 16-2, and he and James K Polk had the best scores in the old days.

My new system is much more consistent, with almost all presidents having positive scores and beating their opponent's score. With the Saturn Return factor added, only four of the 57 contests were anomalous. Even in those 4 cases, 3 of the losers went on to become president later. 

The Saturn Return factor is that (since 1824) if Saturn returns to its position in a candidate's horoscope during the election or in the next 4 years (when the candidate is about 55-59 years old), that candidate loses, refuses to run again, dies, or suffers a calamitous presidency that ruins him. All current candidates are clear of this factor. If Andrew Cuomo had run this year, he would have faced a Saturn Return. His score is better now than it was, by the way. He may be one of the few options the Democrats have in the near future. My hopes for Corey Booker just went kaput.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton now has a positive score, if still a weak one: 12-9. But, the other news is that Donald Trump is not as strong in the new scoring system. Now 8-4, it's still higher percentage-wise than most of the Republican field in 2016. Only Pataki and Carly Fiorina have higher scores. Jeb Bush's score went down to 9-11, and Cruz and Kasich have even more dismal scores than they had before. But Hillary can almost catch up with Trump in her scoring percentage with the added, unofficial points for Jupiter, Mercury and Venus rising on her ascendant. Most candidates with Jupiter rising in their charts (including her husband) have won their elections. And no candidate with so low a score (8) on the positive side of the equation has been elected since Herbert Hoover (who had 8-12, now the lowest % score ever to win).

I will post the new revised article soon. Best wishes, and keep the star currents flowing. As above, so below!

It seems Clinton has a higher score than Trump.

[Eric the Green]

(05-15-2016, 09:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(05-12-2016, 01:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I know you are all waiting anxiously for my revised horoscope scoring system for the USA presidents and candidates. I've about finished and have some interesting news items.

It's true that Bernie loses his perfect 10-0 score in the new system. But now he's at 14-5, and still has a higher score than all the candidates of the 2016 race except, believe it or not, George Pataki at 14-4, who never had a chance in his Republican Party. I never really understood how George Pataki could have a good score, but then, I am not a Republican from New York.

3 new aspects that score negative for Bernie were added that basically say that he gets stuck in a rut with his ideas, and gets carried away with his thoughts of transforming things. But, such is as we expect. Most of the potential Democratic candidates today don't look that great; none match Bernie's score. So I'm not sure whom the Democrats can field in the future. Almost all modern presidents (since FDR) have had astronomically high scores in the new system. Obama, for example, now scores 18-3! So did Dubya, and Bill scored 19-2. Even Lincoln only had 16-2, and he and James K Polk had the best scores in the old days.

My new system is much more consistent, with almost all presidents having positive scores and beating their opponent's score. With the Saturn Return factor added, only four of the 57 contests were anomalous. Even in those 4 cases, 3 of the losers went on to become president later. 

The Saturn Return factor is that (since 1824) if Saturn returns to its position in a candidate's horoscope during the election or in the next 4 years (when the candidate is about 55-59 years old), that candidate loses, refuses to run again, dies, or suffers a calamitous presidency that ruins him. All current candidates are clear of this factor. If Andrew Cuomo had run this year, he would have faced a Saturn Return. His score is better now than it was, by the way. He may be one of the few options the Democrats have in the near future. My hopes for Corey Booker just went kaput.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton now has a positive score, if still a weak one: 12-9. But, the other news is that Donald Trump is not as strong in the new scoring system. Now 8-4, it's still higher percentage-wise than most of the Republican field in 2016. Only Pataki and Carly Fiorina have higher scores. Jeb Bush's score went down to 9-11, and Cruz and Kasich have even more dismal scores than they had before. But Hillary can almost catch up with Trump in her scoring percentage with the added, unofficial points for Jupiter, Mercury and Venus rising on her ascendant. Most candidates with Jupiter rising in their charts (including her husband) have won their elections. And no candidate with so low a score (8) on the positive side of the equation has been elected since Herbert Hoover (who had 8-12, now the lowest % score ever to win).

I will post the new revised article soon. Best wishes, and keep the star currents flowing. As above, so below!

It seems Clinton has a higher score than Trump.

Her higher positive number could be a factor, but I look primarily at the percentage, which would be Trump 2.0, Hillary Clinton 1.33. However, the Jupiter and other rising planets could hypothetically bump Hillary's score up to 17-9, or 1.88%. I may tweak the system by giving one of Hillary's negative aspects another point, which would be 17-10, 1.7. So Trump still has an advantage in his personality as indicated by his chart, which would not be surprising at all.

Some of Trump's positive aspects are borderline too, although having his exact Jupiter-Uranus trine configured with his sun and moon could give it a boost. Jupiter trine Uranus is the symbol of the popular hero, according to astrology experts. My new system has few anomalies in the historical record, so it's good; but it's not perfect; nor could any predictive system be perfect.

Two other astrological factors favor the Democratic nominee; the new moon before the election and Saturn's current position in the houses of the candidates. More on that in my article, to be posted later. Right now I just have my older article with the older system posted, but it also discusses those two factors.

[Eric the Green]

If Trump can win Ohio, where he now leads, and PA and FL, where he is within margin of error, then he can win. My system would be adjusted accordingly too, and Hillary might get a lower score than 12-9, and Trump keep his 8-4 score securely.

Here's How The Donald gets to 270:
PA 20
OH 18
FL 29
NC 15
SC 9
GA 16
WV 5
KY 8
TN 11
IN 11
AL 9
MS 6
LA 8
AR 6
MO 10
TX 38
OK 7
KS 6
NE 5
ND 3
SD 3
MT 3
WY 3
ID 4
AK 3
AZ 11? hispanic vote a factor
UT 6? Mormons/Romney a factor
= 273

[Eric the Green]

An interesting pattern updated from a previous post of mine here: Best scores of any nominee: Harry Truman, 1948 (16-0), James K Polk, 1844 (21-2). Worst score: John Breckinridge, 1860 (2-23 J). Lowest score by a winning candidate: Herbert Hoover, 1928 (8-12). Highest score by a losing candidate: Jimmy Carter, 1980 (14-3), felled by a Saturn Return to Ronald Reagan (19-5). Carter had beat Gerald Ford (14-4) in 1976. In all 57 elections, only 3 winners had a negative horoscope score (.05 or 5%) One had an even score (TR). By contrast, 34 losers had a negative score (54% of 63). 24 losers had a positive score (38%), but 15 of them were also president of the USA. 5 had an even score (including Bryan 3 times). Candidates who ran more than once are tallied for each time they ran.


Note that Breckinridge and Hoover ran at what Strauss and Howe called the cusp of a 4T. Polk won at the start of what they call a 3T, and Carter lost to Reagan at what they called the start of a 3T in their first book. Truman won near the start of a 1T.

[naf140230]

(05-16-2016, 01:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If Trump can win Ohio, where he now leads, and PA and FL, where he is within margin of error, then he can win. My system would be adjusted accordingly too, and Hillary might get a lower score than 12-9, and Trump keep his 8-4 score securely.

Here's How The Donald gets to 270:
PA 20
OH 18
FL 29
NC 15
SC 9
GA 16
WV 5
KY 8
TN 11
IN 11
AL 9
MS 6
LA 8
AR 6
MO 10
TX 38
OK 7
KS 6
NE 5
ND 3
SD 3
MT 3
WY 3
ID 4
AK 3
AZ 11? hispanic vote a factor
UT 6? Mormons/Romney a factor
= 273

I read an article on The New York Times that shows that online polling might be less accurate than live-telephone polling. Also, live-telephone polling is being used less now than it was before Donald Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee.

[Eric the Green]

My new version of Predicting Presidential Elections is now up (!!). New updated figures and analysis is available there.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentia...ions2.html

Minor adjustments to the scores for each candidate may still occur. As Galen said, I am flawed and I make mistakes. I do my best to correct them. So, if I discover another error, or adjust and update the system again, the scores and analysis could change again. As elections continue, the statistics change a bit over the years.

[Eric the Green]

I knew I forgot something; scores can also change somewhat if the candidate's birth time becomes known; especially lunar aspects.

[Eric the Green]

Sherrod Brown is being mentioned as Hillary's Veep. I think it's probably her best choice.

He is a pro-labor, anti-free-trade progressive that many Sanders supporters could get behind. Hillary picking him would show that she hears the concerns that Bernie and even Trump is raising. But Brown is a Hillary Clinton superdelegate, so he has not left the Hillary fold, and so could work with her cheerfully.

Brown has said he prefers being in the Senate. Kasich would get to pick his successor if the Hillary-Sherrod ticket wins, which is a big downside. However, if the pick works to get many blue-collar and young Democrats and Independents behind Hillary, and help her pick up Ohio, that could defeat Trump big time and help get Democrats elected to the Senate; probably enough to make up for the lost senate seat.

I originally gave Sherrod Brown more positive points on my system than any candidate or potential candidate ever, but I had to dial that back due to uncertainty about his birth time and thus the exact location of the Moon in his chart and its aspects, as I have done with the historic candidates. So now his score is still an impressive 20-10. If his birth time becomes known his score may be adjusted. And being a core boomer 1952 cohort he's past a Saturn Return, and still young enough to run in 2020 or maybe even 2024.

Interestingly, he has that Saturn-Neptune conjunction that many 1952-53 cohorts like John Edwards have, and has it strongly. This is a conjunction that figures prominently in America's destiny, particularly where American presidential martyrs are concerned. This could matter if he runs in 2020. This conjunction was in the charts of William Henry Harrison (the first president to die in office), Lincoln, FDR and JFK. So, if he survives and is elected, he could become quite a visionary leader.

My new article on predicting elections:
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[naf140230]

I recently posted this: http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-142.html

[naf140230]

(05-18-2016, 11:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My new version of Predicting Presidential Elections is now up (!!). New updated figures and analysis is available there.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentia...ions2.html

Minor adjustments to the scores for each candidate may still occur. As Galen said, I am flawed and I make mistakes. I do my best to correct them. So, if I discover another error, or adjust and update the system again, the scores and analysis could change again. As elections continue, the statistics change a bit over the years.

You are not the only astrologer to predict that Hillary Clinton winning the election in 2016.

Here is a blog that shows another: http://solarisastrology.blogspot.com/201...ction.html
Here is another related blog: http://solarisastrology.blogspot.co.uk/2...lunar.html

[Eric the Green]

(05-26-2016, 10:38 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(05-18-2016, 11:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My new version of Predicting Presidential Elections is now up (!!). New updated figures and analysis is available there.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentia...ions2.html

Minor adjustments to the scores for each candidate may still occur. As Galen said, I am flawed and I make mistakes. I do my best to correct them. So, if I discover another error, or adjust and update the system again, the scores and analysis could change again. As elections continue, the statistics change a bit over the years.

You are not the only astrologer to predict that Hillary Clinton winning the election in 2016.

Here is a blog that shows another: http://solarisastrology.blogspot.com/201...ction.html
Here is another related blog: http://solarisastrology.blogspot.co.uk/2...lunar.html

People such as TnT (Tim) just assume that astrologers cannot take a scientific approach as part of doing astrology, and many times astrologers (including myself, when less careful) are content to wallow in this expectation, and not do careful research to back up their claims. Astrology is not a traditional materialistic, mechanistic physical science, but it can still conduct empirical research to see if patterns work. Apparently this astrologer thought he noticed a powerful pattern involving Venus that was 89% correct. But it didn't take me long to verify that this is not the case.

But I'm sure many pundits, prophets and astrologers will predict a Hillary win. But I don't know how many predicted either that Bernie Sanders would seriously challenge her for the nomination, or that Donald Trump would not only NOT fade quickly, but be nominated. I did those things early this year, or even in the middle of last year. Almost no pundits took Trump seriously; I did, after seeing his chart soon after he announced.

Hillary is not going to have a cake-walk; we all know that. But demographics and the electoral college landscape alone suggest that Trump will have an uphill climb. And any astrologer can see that Trump makes troubles for himself with his arrogant Mars in Leo rising. Even people who don't know his chart can guess that he has this; it manifests so plainly. So it's interesting how it all plays out; and what will happen in 2020 as a result of Hillary's predicted election in Nov.2016 is interesting too.