Atlanta Group: Predicting Future Presidential Elections from Past Ones

Ralph Cannizzaro, Frances Rackow, Penny Shelton,and J. Lee Lehman, Ph.D.[1]

Copyright 2000 J. Lee Lehman

There are two possible ways to predict the outcome of a political election: either using mundane charts (such as Ingresses, election day charts, prior lunations), or by comparative natal methods. Lee published some mundane studies in a previous article,[2] and in another article she reported some possible methods comparing natal charts: the actual, instead of the theoretical results for successful candidates.[3] One of the simplest ways to study political elections from a natal perspective is to study presidents’ nativities at the time of their successful elections, compared to the nativity of the unsuccessful candidate. We have restricted this study to presidents and candidates whose data meets the Rodden AA-B criteria.[4] These strictures result in a total of sixteen elections which we can study. These are shown in Table 1.

Table One. Candidate pairs where both candidates have B data or better.

Year Candidates. The candidate with an asterisk (*) won. Date Inaugurated
1864 George B. McClellan (AA) vs Abraham Lincoln* (B) 3/4/1861
1896 William Jennings Bryan (B) vs William McKinley* (A) 3/4/1897
1900 William Jennings Bryan (B) vs William McKinley* (A) 3/4/1901
1908 William Jennings Bryan (B) vs William H Taft* (A) 3/4/1909
1912 Theodore Roosevelt (B) vs Woodrow Wilson* (B) 3/4/1913
1916 Charles Evans Hughes (A) Woodrow Wilson* (B) 3/4/1917
1936 Alf Landon (A) vs Franklin Roosevelt* (AA) 1/20/1937
1940 Wendell Wilkie (A) vs Franklin Roosevelt* (AA) 1/20/1941
1960 Richard Nixon (AA) vs John F. Kennedy* (A) 1/20/1961
1972 George McGovern (A) vs Richard M. Nixon* (AA) 1/20/1973
1976 Gerald Ford (AA) vs James E. Carter* (AA) 1/20/1977
1980 James E. Carter (AA) vs Ronald Reagan*(B) 1/20/1981
1984 Ronald Reagan*(B) vs Walter F. Mondale (AA) 1/20/1985
1988 Michael Dukakis (AA) vs George Bush* (A) 1/20/1989
1992 George Bush (A) vs William Clinton* (A) 1/20/1993
1996 Robert Dole (A) vs William Clinton* (A) 1/20/1997

In class, Lee put forward the following challenge: pick your favorite astrological technique, and see if you can get quantitative results that predict the outcome. This article gives some of these results.

Penny picked profections. Profections are a classical technique in which the Ascendant is moved one house for each year of life. Accordingly: the 1st House gives the first year of life, the 2nd House the 2nd (age one), etc. A chart may be drawn with the profected Ascendant as the 1st House cusp, and the twelve houses interpreted accordingly. Because of the importance of angularity, Penny looked at the Profected 1st and its respective Natal House, the Profected 10th and its respective Natal House, and the Profected Election (based upon November date) from the Profected 1st. House. Then we will look for any combinations which repeat with emphasis on the natal 10th. These results are shown in Table 2.

Table Two. Profections of Presidential Elections – Winners and Losers. Asterisk (*) denotes the predicted winner.

Election of 1864

* Abe Lincoln – Winner
P-1st House in the Natal 8th house. P-10th is the Natal 5th @ 26 Gemini and Mercury is 10Pisces in P-6/N1. P-election is N 4th @7 Gemini and Mercury is 10 Pisces in P6/N1. There is a connection between the Profected 10 and the Profected Election both ruled by Mercury in the natives Natal 1st house. Special note to the Profected 1st house is the Natal 8th house and Lincoln died in office
George McClellan – Losing Party
P-1st House is the Natal 2nd house @12 Libra and Venus is 9 Cap. Conj. Neptune. P-10th House is the Natal 11th @ 23 Cancer and Moon 2 Aqu in the P-4 house. P-Election is the Natal 1st @ 18 Virgo and Mercury is 0Cap in the P3/N4. There is not a connection between any Profected house or ruler.

Election of 1896

* William McKinley – Winner
P-1st is Natal 6th. P-10th is Natal 3rd @ 21 Sag is Jupiter is 5 Aqu in P11/N4. P-Electional is Natal 3rd @ 21 Sag. There is a connection between the Profected 10 and the Profected Election and Jupiter makes is conj the Moon and Sun. Mars also rules the Profected 1sth house and is in rulership sextile to Saturn in the Profected 10th house also the Profected Election House
William Jennings Bryan – Losing Party
P-1st is the Natal 1st @6 Gemini and Mercury is 16 Aries is in the P-11/N11. P-10 is 13 Aqu and Saturn is 20 Leo in the Natal 4th. P-Election is the Natal 8th house. There is no connection between ruler or houses and the P-Election in the Natal 8th.

Election of 1900

* William McKinley – Winner
P-1 is the Natal 10th House @ 29 Cancer and Moon is 6 Aqu. P-10 is the Natal 7th. P-Election is also the Natal 7th @ 25 Aries & Mars is 18 Scorpio. The P-1 Moon ruler is conj Jupiter and Sun in the P-7/N4th. McKinley died in Office in the P-1 is 29 degrees.
William Jennings Bryan – Losing Party
P-1st is the Natal 5th @ 11Virgo and Mercury is 16 Aries in P7/N11. P-10th is Natal 2nd @3 Cancer and Moon is 27 Aqu is P6/N7&8. P-Election is the P-8th and Natal 12th. This is again a losing profection. Also P-8th is 24 Aries and Mars is applying to the Natal 8th house.

Election of 1908

* William Taft – Winner
The P-1 ruler and the P-10th rulers is in the house of the P- Election. P-1 is N4th @23 Cancer and Moon is 27 Leo in the P2/N5. P-10 is N1st @ 9 Tarsus and Venus is 14 Leo in the P2/N5. P-Elections the P2 /N5th.
William Jennings Bryan – Losing Party
P-1 is the N1st. P-10 is the N10th. P-Election is the P8/N8 – becoming a signature of the losing party.

Election of 1912

* Woodrow Wilson – Winner
P-1 is N-10th @ 17 Cancer and Moon is 0Aqu in P-7/N4. P-10 is N-7th @15 Aries & Mars is 17 Aqu in the P-7/N4. P-Election is the P10th and the Natal 7th. Connection again between P1, P10 and the P11 and the Natal 10th house.
Theodore Roosevelt – Losing Party
P-1 is the N7th @ 24 Sag and Jupiter is 21 Gemini in the P6/N1 – this would also be the profected part of death. P10 is the N4th @0Virgo and Mercury is 2 Scorpio, Combust in the P11/N5th. P-Elections the Natal 1st. There is no connection between any house of planet.

Election of 1916

* Woodrow Wilson – Winner
P1 is the N12th @ 20 Virgo and Mercury is 18 Cap. P10 is N9th @11 Gemini and Mercury is 18 Cap. P-Election is the Natal 10th. Definite connections between profected houses and natal 10th.
Charles Evans Hughes – Losing Party
P1 is N7th @ 26 Taurus, conj Algol, Venus is 8 Pisces. P10 is N4th @ 11 Pisces and Venus is 8 Pisces. P Election is N1st @ 25 Scorpio and Mars is 5 Aqu. Again there is no connection between houses.

Election of 1936

* Franklin Roosevelt – Winner

P1 is N7th @ 23 Pisces and Jupiter is 16 Taurus in the P3/N9. P10 is N4th @ 22 Sag and Jupiter is 16 Taurus is the P3/N9. P-Election is N4 @ 22 Sag and Jupiter is 16 Taurus is the P3/N9. Connections between all houses
Alf Landon – Losing Party
P1 is N2nd @ 24 Sag and Jupiter is 3 Scorpio square Saturn. P10 is N11 @ 11 Libra and Venus is 4 Libra conj Uranus. P-Election is N2 @1 Aqu and Saturn is 2 Leo conj Mars. In the P8th house. Again the 8th house connection at time of Election and no other winning connections.

Election of 1940

* Franklin Roosevelt – Winner
P1 is N10th @ 22 Gemini and Mercury’s 27 Aqu P9/N6. P10 is N7th @ 23 Pisces and Jupiter is 16 Taurus P12/N9. P-Election is N7 @23 Pisces. Again Connection between profected houses and natal 10th.
Wendell Wilkie – Losing Party
P1 is N1 @26 Virgo and Saturn is 28 Virgo P8/N8. P10 is N10 @19 Scorpio and Mars is 15 Sag in 11. P-Election is N9 @ 22 Libra and Venus is 5 Aries in the P2/N2. Connection between P1 and natal 8th for losing without any additional connection between houses to support a win.

Election of 1960

John F. Kennedy – Winner
P1 is N8th @ 14 Taurus and Venus is 16 Gemini. P10 is N5th @ 28 Aqu and Saturn is 27 Cancer in P3/N10. P – Election is P6 or N1 and Venus is 16 Gemini in the P2/N9. Venus squares Moon (ruler of natal 10th). Many connections with the 8th house and he did die in office.
Richard Nixon – Losing Party
P1 is N12th @8 Leo and Sun is 19 Cap oppose Neptune in the P12th. P10 is N9 @11 Taurus and Venus is 3 Pisces P7/N6. P- Election is N9 – Saturn is Rx in the 9th house. This one may have been tougher to call. As both have connections but Nixon’s are somewhat weaker.

Election of 1972

Richard Nixon – Winner
P1 is N12 @ 21 Leo and Sun is 19 Cap in the P6/N5th. P10 is N9@ 11 Taurus and Venus is 3 Pisces P7/N6. P-Election is P10/N9. It is interesting that the two times Nixon ran for President were both P12 house years. One he lost and one he won and why did he win the 2nd time and not the first –see McGovern’s chart.
George McGovern
P1 is N3 @ 9 Leo and Sun is 25 Cancer in the P12/N2. P10 is N12 @ 20 Taurus and Venus is 4 Virgo in P2/N4. P-Election is P4/N6 @20 Scorpio and Mars 11 Sag in the P4/N6. McGovern does not have connections between houses.

Election of 1976

* James Earl Carter – Winner
P1 is N5th @ 2 Pisces and Jupiter is 14 Sag in P10/N2. P10 is N2nd @ 22 Scorpio and Mars is 25 Aqu is P12/N4. P-Election is N6 @ 0Aries and Mars is 25 Aqu is P12/N4.
Gerald Ford – Losing Party
P1is N4 @24 Cancer and Moon is 3Sag in P4/N7. P10 is N1st @13 Taurus and Venus is 5Gemini in P10/N1. P-Election is N7 @13 Scorpio and Mars is 19 Taurus in P10/N1. Neptune conj P1/N4 and Moon opposes Venus in the P10. Carter chart is stronger with more connections.

Election of 1980

* Ronald Reagan – Winner

P1 is N10th @21 Libra and Venus is 3 Pisces in P5/N2. P10 is N7th @27 Gemini and Merc is 21 Cap in P4/N1. P- Election is P9 and N6 @4 Gemini and Merc is 21 Cap in P4/N1 conj Uranus.
Jimmy Carter – Losing Party
P1 is N9 @23 Gemini and Mercury is 21 Virgo P3/N11. P10 is N6 @0 Aries and Mars is 25 Aqu in the P8/N4 (losing indicator). P-Elections N10 @28 Cancer and Moon 13 Scorpio in P5/N1. The connections again between the P8 seems to be strong for losing.

Election of 1984

* Ronald Reagan – Winner
P1 is N2 @1 Aqu and Saturn is 0 Taurus in P3/N4. P10 is N11 @14 Scorpio and Mars is 3 Cap in P12/N1. Pefect is P10 in N11 at 14 Scorpio. Connection between P10 and P- Election.
Walter Mondale – Losing Party
P1 is N9 @29 Scorpio and Mars is 20 Sag in P2/N10. P10 is N6 @ 26 Cancer and Moon is in the P8/N4 – Signature of Losing Party. P Election is P11 & N7 @ 6Virgo and Mercury is P3/N11 and Combust.

Election of 1988

* George Bush – Winner
P1 is N5 @28 Cap and Saturn is 25 Libra in P12/N2. P10 is N2 @16 Libra and Venus is 17 Cancer in P6/N10. P-Election is N9 @15 Taurus and Venus is 17 Cancer in P6/N10 conj. Pluto.
Michael Dukakis – Losing Party
P1 is N8@ 3 Cap and Saturn is 10Aqu in P2/N10 (8th house is signature of Losing Party). P10 in N6 @8 Virgo and Mercury is 3 Sag in P12/N7. P -Elections N8 again signature of Losing Party.

Election of 1992

* Bill Clinton – Winner
P1 is N11 @10 Leo and Sun is 26 Leo in rulership. P10 is N8 @1 Taurus and Venus is 11 Libra, in rulership at P3/N1. P-Election is N1@5Libra and Venus is 11 Libra in rulership at P3/N1. Clinton has all planets in rulership in spite of the 8th house connection.
George Bush – Losing Party
P1 is N8 @16 Aries and Mars is 25 Aqu (weaker than Clinton). P10 is N5 @ 28 Cap. And Saturn is 25 Libra in P7/N2. P Election is P5 and N12 @28 Leo and Sun is 21 Gemini. 8th house connection with planets in weaker dignity than Clinton.

Election of 1996

* Bill Clinton – Winner
P1 is N3 @1 Sag and Jupiter is 23 Libra in P11/N1. P10 is N12 @9 Virgo and Mercury is 7 Leo in P9/N11. P-Election is N5 @10 Aqu and Saturn is 2 Leo in P8/N10.
Robert Dole – Losing Party
P1 is N2 @10 Gemini and Mercury is 28 Cancer in P3/N4. P10 is N11 @13 Aqu and Saturn is 14 Libra in P5/N6. P-Election is N6 @18Virgo and Mercury is 28 Cancer in P3/N4. Mercury is Combust. Having the Ruler of the Election combust has also proven to be a signature for the losing party. This Election would also have been somewhat difficult to forecast.

Election of 2000

George W. Bush – forecast as Losing Party
P1 is N7 @7 Aqu and Saturn is 26 Cancer in P6/N12. P10 is N4 @24 Libra and Venus is 21 Leo in P7/N1 conj. Pluto. P-Election is P5 and is N11 @ 0 Gemini and Mercury is 9 Leo separating from Pluto in P7/N1.
Al Gore – forecast as Winner
P1 is N5 @0 Sag and Jupiter is 28 Sag in rulership conj Moon in P1/N5. P10 is N2 @ 26 Leo and Sun is 10 Aries in P5/N9. P-Election is P8 and N12 @4 Cancer and Moon 3 Cap.

Of the sixteen elections, two were too close to call, and the others worked according to this model. As far as 2000 is concerned, Gore’s chart has greater dignity. Neither Bush nor Gore has connections between houses. We have seen the P1 house in dignity as the winner in the past. Al Gore does have an 8th house connection this may indicate a death in office. Bush does not have any contacts for winning. This is only slight favor for Gore.

Fran picked solar arcs. Her results are shown in Table 3.

The examples do not give enough results to determine whether the Nodes or Fortuna should count in the weighting, in each case the winner had more angular planets where the system worked. In every case where the system did not work, Mars was angular for the losing candidate.

If we consider that this is a Jupiter/Saturn conjunction year which is the “Presidential Death Cycle” Fran is concerned for Gore because his SA Moon is only 2 degrees from the 8th house and his SA Uranus is less than a degree from the natal Saturn/Pluto midpoint in the 1st house. (Sat/Plu is a death axis in Cosmobiology.)

Fran noted the Aries Point, or any SA planet directed to zero degrees of a cardinal sign because this point is associated with being in the public eye or achieving prominence according to Cosmobiology.

Ralph’s model was so simple, it didn’t require a table to explain. He looked at the progressed 10th, its ruler and the dignity/debility of the ruler, and the number of planets on the progressed angles.

Looking at outer planets in the 10th, with Saturn there the nominee had 1 win and 4 losses; Neptune there had 2 wins and 1 loss; Uranus 0 wins and 2 losses; Pluto 2 wins and 2 losses; Jupiter did not appear there. Overall, 5 wins and 9 losses.

Second, the nominee with the higher score for dignity/debility of the progressed 10th ruler had 6 wins and 4 losses(60%); there were 5 draws.

Third, the nominee with the most number of planets, including the luminaries, had 7 wins and 5 losses(58%); there were 2 draws.

So far nothing was exciting.

However, then he noticed the Vertex was an extraordinary indicator. The closer the Vertex to the Midheaven, the greater the chance of winning. The closer to the Descendant (the Portals of Death?), the greater the chance of losing.

Asking one question, ” Whose progressed Vertex is closest to the Midheaven?” results in 14 wins and 0 losses!

While both Bush and Gore are a poor sample in that neither has his Vertex anywhere near the mc, with both in the 7th, a bad place to be, Gore’s is 6 degrees closer to the Midheaven. Hence, Gore wins.

Here we see three completely different methods, all producing interesting looking results from a historical standpoint, and all predicting the same outcome this year: Gore by a small margin. Do the methods work predictively? We shall see!

[1] Also known as Lee’s Atlanta Classical Studies Group. Ralph has completed Classical Studies in Electional, Mundane and Gaming; Frances has completed Classical Studies in Horary; Penny has completed Classical Studies in Horary, Natal, Electional, Mundane and Gaming.

[2] J. Lee Lehman. 1998. Presidential Elections as Warfare. Horary Practitioner 9: 47-51.

[3] J. Lee Lehman. 2000. US Presidential Elections: The Use of Past Elections to Predict Future Outcomes. Astrological Journal 42(5): 6-15.

[4] Thanks to Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough for the work which has culminated in the AstroDataBank ®. All the data here is from the ADB, except for Ronald Reagan’s data, which was reported on their web site (http://www.astrodatabank.com/) as finally achieving B status. Full descriptions of the Rodden Ratings are also available on the site.

SA= Solar Arc Worked?
1864 Abraham Lincoln v. George B. McClellan Lincoln had SA Jupiter conjunct natal Moon in his first house, while McClellan had Mars conjunct the 7th cusp. Tie. Jupiter beat Mars
1896 William Jennings Bryan v. William McKinley Bryan lost with only Solar Arc Jupiter in the 4th, McKinley had SA Mercury 3 degrees from the Descendant, but also at the Pluto/Desc midpoint, and SA Venus in the 4th Yes. Counting Mercury as angular
1900 William Jennings Bryan v. William McKinley The same pair, this time Bryan’s SA Sun was in the 12th! By now, McKinley’s SA Mercury was to the 7th house cusp, SA Fortuna conjunct natal Venus, and SA Venus is still in the 4th. Nothing of Bryan had become angular. yes
1908 William Taft v. William Jennings Bryan By election number 3, Bryan’s Mars was in the 10th, and Mercury was conjunct Uranus just 2 degrees from his ASC. Taft had Solar Arc Sun in the 7th, Solar Arc Neptune and North Node in the 1st House. His SA Asc was at zero Cancer, the “Aries Point” and SA Fortuna was in the 4th. 2 planets each-tie. Mars doesn’t help!
1912 Woodrow Wilson v. Theodore Roosevelt Roosevelt had a lot of angularity: SA Sun, Mercury, Moon Mars and Pluto. Wilson had SA Uranus just one degree past his MC and Pluto at the Aries Point Square Natal Jupiter. No. Mars angular harms again.
1916 Woodrow Wilson v. Charles Evans Hughes Hughes had SA Mars in the 4th, with Neptune 1 degree applying to the 7th. Wilson had Solar Arc Venus 2 degrees into the 7th house, Uranus still in the 10th, and SA Moon at the Aries Point. Tie. Venus beat Mars
1936 Franklin D. Roosevelt v. Alf Landon Landon had SA Saturn and Mars in the 10th, SA Uranus in the 1st. Roosevelt had SA Sun and Venus in the 7th, SA Fortuna on the MC, and SA Pluto, Jupiter, Neptune and Saturn all in the 10th. yes
1940 Franklin D Roosevelt v. Wendell Wilkie Wilkie had SA Mars in the 1st, SA Venus conjunct Fortuna in the 4th, SA Pluto one degree from the 7th. FDR had SA Fortuna conjunct natal Mars in the 10th, plus SA Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter and Pluto were still in the 10th. yes
1960 John F. Kennedy v. Richard Nixon Nixon had SA Uranus in the 7th, and SA Saturn in the 10th. JFK had Solar Arc Venus and Pluto in the 10th, No. Node and Uranus in the 4th, SA Moon in the 1st yes
1972 Richard Nixon v. George McGovern McGovern had SA Moon in the 1st, SA Sun in the 4th. Nixon had SA Neptune in the 1st, SA Sun in the 7th, and Uranus in the 7th. yes, Nixon had one more angular planet.
1976 Jimmy Carter v. Gerald Ford Ford had SA Moon in the 10th, SA Venus and Saturn in the 4th (Saturn really in orb of the 5th.) Carter had SA Mercury conjunct natal Moon in the first, SA Jupiter in the 4th, and SA Uranus in the 7th. yes
1980 Ronald Reagan v. Jimmy Carter Carter still had SA Jupiter in the 4th, SA Mercury in the 1st, Uranus in the 7th. Reagan’s SA MC was at the Aries point, in the 1st. SA Sun was in the 4th, Saturn, Moon, NN 7th. Jupiter was in the 1st at the midpoint of natal 1st house Mercury/Uranus. yes
1984 Ronald Reagan v. Walter Mondale Mondale had Mercury in the 1st and Pluto in the 7th. Reagan still had 5 angular planets, plus the Nodes and SA MC. yes
1988 George Bush v. Michael Dukakis Dukakis had SA Jupiter in the 7th, Mars and Venus in the 10th, Uranus in the 1st, and Pluto in the 4th. George Bush had SA Moon at 20 Sag, Fortuna at 21 Sag and natal IC at 21 Sag. No. (Mars was angular for Dukakis)
1992 Bill Clinton v. George Bush Bush had SA Venus conjunct the natal Asc. Bill Clinton had SA Moon conjunct the MC, Uranus and No. Node in the 10th, SA Sun in the 1st conjunct natal Venus. yes
1996 Bill Clinton v. Robert Dole Dole had the SA Asc conjunct the natal IC, SA Jupiter in the 7th. Clinton had SA Sun in the 1st, Moon in the 10th, No. Node in the 10th conjunct natal Mercury. Yes
2000 Al Gore v. George W Bush Gore has SA Uranus in the 1st – so does Bush. Gore also has SA Jupiter in the 7th, and Moon, although the Moon is only 2 degrees from the 8th house cusp. Bush has SA N Node in the 1st, SA Mars in the 4th, and SA Neptune in the 4th. So, Gore has two planets that count as angular, Bush has three. Most elections have not been this close! What makes matters less clear is that Bush has Mars as an angular planet which has never won in our sample. ???
Results of Initial Investigation
Total Examples with results 16 100%
Number where angular planets alone predicted outcome 11 69%
Number where there was a tie between the candidates 3 19%
Number where results were incorrect 2 13%
Results if we conclude that Mars Angular indicates a loser:
Total Examples with results 16 100%
# where angular planets, plus Mars denotes Loser, correct 16 100%
Number where there was a tie between the candidates 0 0%
Number where results were incorrect 0 0%

US Presidential Elections: The Use of Past Elections to Predict Future Outcomes

Copyright 2000 J. Lee Lehman

Published in the Astrological Journal, September 2000

There are two generalized methods to predict the outcome of a political election: either we can find an appropriate mundane chart (such as Ingresses, election day charts, prior lunations) to use for predictive purposes, or we can find a method based on the two primary opponents’ nativities. I have addressed the mundane charts in a previous article.[1] Here, I report the results of some studies to examine the actual, instead of the theoretical results for successful candidates. In the USA, our Constitution specifies the dates of our presidential elections: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in calendar years divisible by four. Unlike the parliamentary system, there is no possibility of an election sooner than a given date. Interest in the astrology of elections wanes from just after the election until the next election period. Accordingly, every four years, a crop of astrologers will make predictions, but those predictions are seldom followed up in a manner that allows us to learn from both our victories and our losses. And so four years later, a new set of predictions occur, based on techniques that may be accurate, or may be false.

To study political elections from a natal perspective, it occurred to me that there would be two interesting historical approaches. The first may seem so obvious as to border upon trite, but it’s best to state it: by definition, a president is a successful candidate! Therefore, if we study presidents’ nativities at the time of their successful campaigns, we can at least characterize certain natal techniques. Then, if we have chart data for both candidates, we can study other techniques comparatively. I will present both types of models. In both cases, I have restricted myself to presidents and candidates whose data meets the Rodden AA-B criteria.[2]

 

Study 1: The Lunation Cycle

 

Let’s begin with the Lunation Cycle. The results are shown in Table One, using the 8th harmonic version of the Lunation Cycle, running from Phase 1 (progressed New Moon), through Phase 5 (progressed Full Moon), and finally to Phase 8 (Balsamic).

 

Table One. Presidential Lunation Cycle data itemized.

 

 

Name

 

Rodden Rating

 

Date took Office

 

Natal Soli-Lunar Phase

 

Phase at Inaugur-ation

 

1. George Washington

 

AA

 

4/30/1789

 

7

 

7

 

2. James Madison

 

B

 

3/4/1809

 

6

 

6

 

3. James K. Polk

 

A

 

3/4/1845

 

6

 

3

 

4. Abraham Lincoln

 

B

 

3/4/1861

 

8

 

6

 

5. Ulysses S. Grant

 

A

 

3/4/1869

 

2

 

7

 

6. Rutherford B. Hayes

 

A

 

3/4/1877

 

6

 

4

 

7. James Garfield

 

A

 

3/4/1881

 

4

 

2

 

8. Chester A. Arthur*

 

A

 

9/20/1881

 

2

 

8

 

9. William McKinley

 

A

 

3/4/1897

 

8

 

7

 

10. Theodore Roosevelt*

 

B

 

9/14/1901

 

6

 

2

 

11. William H. Taft

 

A

 

3/4/1909

 

8

 

6

 

12. Woodrow Wilson

 

B

 

3/4/1913

 

1

 

8

 

13. Warren G. Harding

 

A

 

3/4/1921

 

4

 

3

 

14. Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

AA

 

3/4/1933

 

4

 

2

 

15. Harry S. Truman*

 

B

 

4/12/1945

 

4

 

5

 

16. John F. Kennedy

 

A

 

1/20/1961

 

3

 

7

 

17. Lyndon B. Johnson*

 

A

 

11/22/1963

 

1

 

8

 

18. Richard M. Nixon

 

AA

 

1/20/1969

 

1

 

8

 

19. Gerald R. Ford*

 

AA

 

8/9/1974

 

3

 

4

 

20. James E. Carter

 

AA

 

1/20/1977

 

1

 

7

 

21. Ronald Reagan

 

B

 

1/20/1981

 

2

 

5

 

22. George Bush

 

A

 

1/20/1989

 

3

 

5

 

23. William Clinton

 

A

 

1/20/1993

 

6

 

3

 

* Elected to office as Vice Presidency; assumed the Presidency on the given date.

We can tabulate the results as shown in Table 2. Dane Rudhyar was the best known interpreter of the Lunation Cycle. The Rudhyarian cycle is essentially an agricultural cycle that extends from the sprouting of seeds, growth, maturation, reproduction, senescence, and death. The 8th phase is characterized by “liberation” and the sowing of seeds for the cycle that is to come. The 8th phase is the second half of the Winter season in this system, and there is a strong undercurrent of dormancy in the interpretation of this phase.[3] Clearly, one is not allowed to be very dormant while in high political office!

 

 

 

Table 2. Tabulation of results by Lunation Cycle stage, Rodden Ratings AA-B.

 

 

Phase

 

Natal

 

Took Office

 

1

 

4

 

0

 

2

 

3

 

3

 

3

 

3

 

3

 

4

 

4

 

2

 

5

 

0

 

3

 

6

 

5

 

3

 

7

 

1

 

5

 

8

 

3

 

4

 

These results do not support the premise that the 8th Phase is a dormant time. Unless, of course, we consider the actual isolation caused by being in the White House. We might also observe the tendency of Presidents to age noticeably in office. The 7th-8th Phases are the “Winter” phases, and here the symbolism would be appropriate. But using Rudhyar’s interpretation, most of us probably would have hypothesized a peak around the 5th or 6th Phase, the culminating stage of the cycle.

 

However, the results do strongly support one facet of the concept of the second half of the cycle representing dissemination. If we count up the number of times a President took office when his progressed phase was in the opening half of the cycle (Phases 1-4) versus the closing half, the numbers are 8 and 15 respectively. In other words, it is almost twice as likely that a President will take office in the second half, supporting the idea that this represents taking what we know and all that we have learned in this cycle and putting it out into the public sphere.

 

We can see this even more graphically in the division into quarters. The least common Phase is for the first quarter, what Busteed and Wergin call the “youthful body.”[4] The frequency increases through the four major phases, peaking at the final stage, what they call “emerging spirit,” or, better in my own opinion, their characterization of this period as “compassionate understanding or implacable regret!” Their description reveals a kernel of possible meaning: how much of this job consists of the sad understanding of exactly how little really can be changed?

 

We should not neglect the numbers for natal phase, as they are seemingly just as interesting. Here the ratio of 1st half to 2nd half of the cycle is 14:9 Instead of the emphasis on the second half, now the emphasis has shifted to the first half. Why?

 

Among the terminology Busteed and Wergin used to classify the two halves are Primary for the first half, and Antithetical for the second half. As they express this, “A PRIMARY person cultivates character… [while the] ANTITHETICAL hemicycle allows time for fufilling personal desire.”[5] Now this is interesting. We are using the issue of electability here, not quality of performance. The word “character” pops up every presidential election, and this is not a new issue: successful generals were elected for their “character” beginning with General George Washington, but also including Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower. Every president since Franklin Roosevelt has been born in the Primary phase except Clinton, and look how everybody complains about his lack of character! Clinton got himself elected with the slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid!” He was the first post-World War II presidential candidate to conduct a successful campaign in which he dodged the character issue.

 

If we take out this remarkable post-war emphasis on character, and re-compute our figures for the period up through Herbert Hoover, the numbers change to 5:7. Prior to the War, you could get yourself elected either on performance, or on character!

 

It appears that the ideal set-up, at least in the current era, is to have a natal Lunation placement in the opening half of the cycle, and a progressed Lunation in the second half. One needs to have the appearance of Character, but one is actually exercising Will.

 

Some of the concepts about the last part of the Lunation Cycle being a time of letting go may need to be re-examined. Introverted, perhaps, but this phase is not ineffectual. Many of us have observed a tendency, either in ourselves or our clients, for the Native to seemingly withdraw during this phase. This may be completely consistent with the kind of prison lifestyle that high office mandates. But it does not mean that the Native is losing a grip on such matters as drive and ambition.

 

The Candidates in 2000:

 

George W. Bush is 3rd Phase natally. On January 20, 2001, he will be in the 1st Phase of his progressed Lunation Cycle.

Al Gore is 6th Phase natally. On January 20, 2001, he will be in the 5th Phase of his progressed Lunation Cycle.

The Edge: No edge given via this technique. Bush has the more favorable natal placement, while Gore has the more favorable placement by progression.

 

 

Study 2: Angularity

 

If we begin with a modern technique such as the Lunation Cycle, let us continue with a classical one, namely angularity. During the Roman Empire, criteria had been established to determine whether a particular chart had the characteristics to mark it as a Emperor’s chart. These criteria were taken so seriously, that for a while astrology was banned specifically to prevent these predictions from being made. One of the principal requirements for an Emperor’s chart was angular planets.[6] Since the Roman Emperors were not outstandingly successful at establishing dynasties, the analogies to US Presidents may actually be a good one. The break-out is shown in Tables 3 and 4, showing both a regular house system, and whole sign houses..

 

Table 3. Planetary placements in Regiomontanus houses for US Presidents.

 

 

House: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th
Moon 4 2 2 3 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 3
Sun 3 1 3 3 3 1 0 3 2 0 2 2
Mercury 3 1 2 4 3 1 0 3 1 3 1 1
Venus 4 2 1 4 1 2 1 0 2 3 3 0
Mars 5 2 0 4 2 1 2 4 0 1 1 1
Jupiter 5 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 3 0 3
Saturn 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 3 4 3 2 2
TOTALS 27 10 12 22 14 7 5 16 12 14 10 12

 

Table 4. Planetary placements in Whole Sign Houses for US Presidents.

 

 

Houses: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th
Moon 1 5 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 3
Sun 4 1 3 2 4 2 0 1 2 1 3 0
Mercury 0 4 2 2 2 4 0 1 3 1 1 3
Venus 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 5 1
Mars 2 4 1 3 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1
Jupiter 6 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 0 1
Saturn 3 3 2 1 0 2 0 0 5 2 3 2
TOTALS 17 22 14 14 14 16 5 8 18 8 14 11

 

These results are in turn combined and compared in Table 5. Granted, this is an exceptionally small data set; on the other hand, it is a complete data set within the criteria given (i.e., US Presidents with birth data of a certain accuracy), and so sampling issues do not apply. Tentatively, Regiomontanus placements look better than Whole Sign as far as our expectations: the Regiomontanus results show exactly what we would expect: a preponderance of angular placements. The Whole Sign results do not match our expectations. However, it’s also clear that not all angular houses appear to be equal in terms of productivity, at least for US Presidents: the 7th House shows up as considerably worse than the other angular houses, and the 10th does not seem as productive as either the 1st or 4th.

 

Table 5. Summary of placements by quality, comparing Regiomontanus and Whole Sign houses.

 

Regiomontanus Whole Sign
Angular 68 40
Succedent 50 58
Cadent 43 59

 

 

The Candidates in 2000:

 

George W. Bush has Mercury and Venus angular.

Al Gore has Venus, Mars and Saturn angular

 

The Edge: slight quantitative edge to Gore, but whether this is a quantitative or qualitative effect is currently unknown.

 

 

Study 3 Mars-Jupiter Conjunction

 

When interpreting a span of time in Classical mundane astrology, there were three major chart types. The Ingress chart – whether for the year, or the coming season – was commonly used. Eclipses, and the lesser lunations were also interpreted. Finally, Major Conjunctions were always considered.

The one Major Conjunction which has been most discussed astrologically with respect to the US Presidential race is the Jupiter-Saturn, in great part because it seems to be a harbinger of the deaths in office of a number of US Presidents. However, as a method of predicting the outcome of the election itself, it leaves a lot to be desired: the most obvious defect being that it happens only every twenty years, while our elections occur every four years!

The need for a system that occurs at least every four years narrows our horizons to two generic options: either we take a longer cycle and sub-divide it to the point that we have the right interval, or we select a shorter cycle. There is little evidence that the former system – the subdivision idea – was ever used. In any case, the implication of this idea would still be that the subdivisions other than the conjunction would be secondary – and we have no evidence for a longer-term “cycle” in presidential elections.

 

In the absence of such evidence, we are safer approaching each election as if it were an independent event. This means we need a shorter cycle. There are two such cycles that qualify: and that actually have a track record historically. These two are the Mars-Jupiter and the Mars-Saturn cycles. I had looked at these two cycles previously to ascertain their use as mundane cycles (i.e., apart from their interactions with particular nativities). As such, they were not especially illuminating. But here we examine them as triggers to natal charts.

 

In Table 6 I have itemized all cases where the winning candidate had at least one natal planet within one degree of the location of the Mars-Jupiter conjunction by Ptolemaic aspect.[7]

 

Table 6 Presidential Elections and the Mars-Jupiter cycle itemized. DD data omitted.

The number who had aspects is 28/44 = 63.6 %.

 

 

Election Year

 

Results

 

Date Ma-Ju

 

Degree

 

Aspect

 

1796

 

John Adams*

 

11/12/1794

 

27 Sg 56

 

opp nNe, tr nPL

 

1800

 

Thomas. Jefferson*

 

3/7/1799

 

21 Ta 17

 

cnj nIC

 

1804

 

Thomas Jefferson*

 

9/2/1803

 

8 Li 16

 

sq nNE

 

1816

 

James Monroe*

 

9/23/1814

 

22 Vi 37

 

sq nPL, tr nME

 

1820

 

James Monroe*

 

2/15/1819

 

1 Aq 52

 

sx nVE

 

1824

 

John Quincy Adams*

 

7/18/1823

 

27 Ge 23

 

cnj nSA

 

1840

 

William Henry Harrison*

 

7/18/1839

 

11 Li 22

 

cnj nNN

 

1864-R

 

Abraham Lincoln

 

11/21/1863

 

12 Sc 18

 

tr nPL

 

1868-R

 

Ulysses S. Grant

 

4/8/1868

 

27 Pi 19

 

tr nMO

 

1872-R

 

Ulysses S. Grant

 

9/21/1872

 

21 Le 39

 

cnj nSN

 

1876-R

 

Rutherford B. Hayes

 

12/15/1874

 

26 Li 19

 

tr nAsc

 

1880-R

 

James Garfield

 

5/10/1879

 

8 Pi 30

 

tr nMA

 

1884-D

 

Grover Cleveland*

 

10/20/1883

 

2 Le 55

 

sq nNN/SN

 

1908-R

 

William H Taft

 

8/14/1908

 

23 Le 43

 

cnj nMA

 

1916-D

 

Woodrow Wilson

 

3/24/1915

 

11 Pi 30

 

tr nSA

 

1928-R

 

Herbert Hoover*

 

7/3/1928

 

5 Ta 29

 

sq nMC

 

1932-D

 

Franklin Roosevelt

 

9/27/1930

 

17 Cn 47

 

sx nJU, sx nUR

 

1936-D

 

Franklin Roosevelt

 

8/26/1935

 

16 Sc 26

 

sx nUR, op nJU

 

1944-D

 

Franklin Roosevelt

 

7/5/1944

 

26 Le 00

 

sq nPL, tr nME, sx nMA

 

1948-D

 

Harry S. Truman

 

9/24/1946

 

29 Li 47

 

sq nJU

 

1960-D

 

John F. Kennedy

 

12/28/1959

 

18 Sg 03

 

sq nMO

 

1964-D

 

Lyndon B. Johnson

 

5/19/1964

 

8 Ta 51

 

tr nMO

 

1968-R

 

Richard M. Nixon

 

11/6/1968

 

28 Vi 22

 

sq n MA, sq nPL

 

1972-R

 

Richard M. Nixon

 

1/25/1971

 

1 Sg 52

 

sx nUR

 

1984-R

 

Ronald Reagan

 

8/8/1982

 

2 Sc 55

 

tr nVE

 

1988-R

 

George Bush

 

12/18/1986

 

15 Pi 40

 

sq nJU

 

1992-D

 

William Clinton

 

6/14/1991

 

11 Le 18

 

cnj nPL

 

1996-D

 

William Clinton

 

11/15/1995

 

19 Sg 11

 

cnj nSN

 

2000

 

 

 

4/6/2000

 

10 Ta 23

 

 

 

* C data.

 

 

The results for the transits are within the expected order of magnitude, meaning: there don’t seem to be any more transit hits than would be expected by chance. However, this would be more meaningful if successful candidates were compared to unsuccessful ones. This we can do: up to a point. We can itemize the following contests, shown in Table 7.

 

Table Seven. Two-way elections where both candidates’ data is known and at least Rodden category B in quality. “Wins” column judges the aspects between the two candidates: if the winner has the stronger connection, then the result is 1; if neutral between them, the result is 0; if the loser would be predicted, the result is -1.

 

 

Year

 

Candidates

 

Ma-Ju cnj

 

 

 

Wins?

 

1864

 

George B. McClellan (AA) vs Abraham Lincoln* (B)

 

12 Sc 18

 

GBM: sx nNE. AL: tr nPL

 

0

 

1896

 

William Jennings Bryan (B) vs William McKinley* (A)

 

2 Cn 23

 

none for either

 

0

 

1900

 

William Jennings Bryan (B) vs William McKinley* (A)

 

13 Sc 33

 

none for either

 

0

 

1908

 

William Jennings Bryan (B) vs William H Taft* (A)

 

23 Le 43

 

WJB: nothing. WHT: cnj nMA

 

1

 

1912

 

Theodore Roosevelt (B) vs Woodrow Wilson* (B)

 

28 Li 23

 

none for either

 

0

 

1916

 

Charles Evans Hughes (A) Woodrow Wilson* (B)

 

11 Pi 30

 

CEH: nothing. WW: tr nSA

 

1

 

1936

 

Alf Landon (A) vs Franklin Roosevelt* (AA)

 

16 Sc 26

 

AL: sx SU, sq PoF. FR: sx nUR, op nJU

 

0

 

1940

 

Wendell Wilkie (A) vs Franklin Roosevelt* (AA)

 

1 Ar 53

 

none for either

 

0

 

1960

 

Richard Nixon (AA) vs John F. Kennedy* (A)

 

18 Sg 03

 

RMN: sq Asc. JFK: sq nMO

 

0

 

1972

 

George McGovern (A) vs Richard M. Nixon* (AA)

 

1 Sg 52

 

GM: sq MC, sx NN, sx SA. RMN: sx nUR

 

-1

 

1976

 

Gerald Ford (AA) vs James E. Carter* (AA)

 

19 Ar 29

 

none for either

 

0

 

1980

 

James E. Carter (AA) vs Ronald Reagan* (B)

 

10 Vi 03

 

none for either

 

0

 

1984

 

Ronald Reagan* (B) vs Walter F. Mondale (AA)

 

2 Sc 55

 

RR: tr nVE. WM: nothing

 

1

 

1988

 

Michael Dukakis (AA) vs George Bush* (A)

 

15 Pi 40

 

MD: nothing. GB: sq nJU

 

1

 

1992

 

George Bush (A) vs William Clinton* (A)

 

11 Le 18

 

GB: nothing. WC: cnj nPL

 

1

 

1996

 

Robert Dole (A) vs William Clinton* (A)

 

19 Sg 11

 

RD: nothing WC: cnj nSN

 

1

 

The results are startling: just by counting the number of aspects and scoring for the candidate with the greater number, the results are 6-1 correct for those cases where there is a difference!

 

The Candidates in 2000:

 

George W. Bush has Mercury and Pluto squaring the Mars-Jupiter conjunction at 10 Taurus 23, and the Part of Fortune squaring it.

Al Gore has nothing aspecting the Mars-Jupiter conjunction at 10 Taurus 23.

The Edge: George W. Bush by natal aspect with the conjunction.

Study 4 Mars-Saturn Conjunction

 

In the last study, we examined the first of two possible major conjunctions which could potentially be used to predict the outcome of presidential elections: the Mars-Jupiter cycle. In this piece, we examine the other alternative: the Mars-Saturn conjunction.

 

In Table 8, I have itemized all cases where the winning candidate had at least one natal planet within one degree of the location of the Mars-Saturn conjunction by Ptolemaic aspect.

 

Table 8. Presidential Elections and the Mars-Saturn cycle itemized. DD data not shown. The number who had aspects is 29/44 = 65.9 %.

 

 

Election Year

 

Results

 

Date Ma-Sa

 

Position

 

 

 

1796

 

John Adams*

 

5/4/1795

 

0 Ge 32

 

none

 

1800

 

Thomas. Jefferson*

 

6/17/1799

 

25 Cn 24

 

opp UR, sx ME

 

1804

 

Thomas Jefferson*

 

8/2/1803

 

18 Vi 29

 

tr NN

 

1808

 

James Madison

 

9/3/1807

 

6 Sc 18

 

opp JU

 

1816

 

James Monroe*

 

4/15/1815

 

11 Aq 13

 

opp NE

 

1820

 

James Monroe*

 

4/25/1819

 

26 Pi 09

 

cnj UR

 

1856

 

James Buchanan*

 

7/6/1855

 

22 Ge 41

 

cnj JU, opp ASC

 

1864-R

 

Abraham Lincoln

 

10/1/1863

 

8 Li 34

 

opp VE

 

1868-R

 

Ulysses S. Grant

 

10/31/1867

 

24 Sc 26

 

sq MA

 

1872-R

 

Ulysses S. Grant

 

11/16/1871

 

6 Cp 59

 

tr SU, cnj NE

 

1880-R

 

James Garfield

 

6/30/1879

 

15 Ar 08

 

tr NN, sx JU

 

1884-D

 

Grover Cleveland*

 

7/19/1883

 

6 Ge 41

 

sq ME-UR

 

1896-R

 

William McKinley

 

11/15/1895

 

11 Sc 33

 

sx NN

 

1900-R

 

William McKinley

 

12/6/1899

 

24 Sg 46

 

sq UR, sx ASC

 

1904-R

 

Theodore Roosevelt

 

12/21/1903

 

6 Aq 52

 

sq PL

 

1908-R

 

William H Taft

 

12/30/1907

 

21 Pi 47

 

cnj NE

 

1912-D

 

Woodrow Wilson

 

8/16/1911

 

19 Ta 58

 

tr ME

 

1916-D

 

Woodrow Wilson

 

9/11/1915

 

14 Cn 24

 

sq ASC

 

1924-R

 

Calvin Coolidge*

 

12/1/1923

 

28 Li 14

 

tr MO

 

1928-R

 

Herbert Hoover*

 

12/26/1927

 

12 Sg 53

 

tr UR

 

1936-D

 

Franklin Roosevelt

 

1/25/1936

 

8 Pi 18

 

sq NN

 

1940-D

 

Franklin Roosevelt

 

2/11/1940

 

26 Ar 15

 

sx MA, sx ME

 

1948-D

 

Harry S. Truman

 

11/12/1947

 

22 Le 13

 

sx NN

 

1960-D

 

John F. Kennedy

 

1/31/1960

 

12 Cp 59

 

cnj NN

 

1964-D

 

Lyndon B. Johnson

 

2/14/1964

 

25 Aq 31

 

tr PL, opp JU

 

1972-R

 

Richard M. Nixon

 

3/31/1972

 

2 Ge 43

 

tr UR, sq VE

 

1980-R

 

Ronald Reagan

 

6/23/1980

 

21 Vi 05

 

tr ME

 

1984-R

 

Ronald Reagan

 

2/4/1984

 

16 Sc 17

 

sq SU

 

1996-D

 

William Clinton

 

3/21/1996

 

28 Pi 00

 

sq PF

 

2000

 

 

 

4/15/2000

 

17 Ta 16

 

 

 

* C data (i.e., least accurate data shown).

 

The results for the transits are within the expected order of magnitude, meaning: there don’t seem to be any more transit hits than would be expected by chance. However, again we can compare successful candidates to unsuccessful ones. These are itemized in Table 9.

 

Table 9. Two-way elections where both candidates’ data is known. “Wins” column judges the aspects between the two candidates: if the winner has the stronger connection, then the result is 1; if neutral between them, the result is 0; if the loser would be predicted, the result is -1.

 

 

Year

 

Candidates

 

Ma-Ju cnj

 

 

 

Wins?

 

1864

 

George B. McClellan (AA) vs Abraham Lincoln* (B)

 

8 Li 34

 

GBM: sq VE, cnj JU. AL: opp VE

 

-1

 

1896

 

William Jennings Bryan (B) vs William McKinley* (A)

 

11 Sc 33

 

WJB: sq NN. WM: sx NN

 

0

 

1900

 

William Jennings Bryan (B) vs William McKinley* (A)

 

24 Sg 46

 

WJB: nothing. WM: sq UR, sx ASC

 

1

 

1908

 

William Jennings Bryan (B) vs William H Taft* (A)

 

21 Pi 47

 

WJB: nothing. WHT: cnj NE

 

1

 

1912

 

Theodore Roosevelt (B) vs Woodrow Wilson* (B)

 

19 Ta 58

 

TR: tr MA. WW: tr ME

 

0

 

1916

 

Charles Evans Hughes (A) Woodrow Wilson* (B)

 

14 Cn 24

 

CEH: nothing. WW: sq ASC

 

1

 

1936

 

Alf Landon (A) vs Franklin Roosevelt* (AA)

 

8 Pi 18

 

AL: nothing. FDR: sq NN

 

1

 

1940

 

Wendell Wilkie (A) vs Franklin Roosevelt* (AA)

 

26 Ar 15

 

WW: sq ASC. FDR: sx MA, sx ME

 

1

 

1960

 

Richard Nixon (AA) vs John F. Kennedy* (A)

 

12 Cp 59

 

RMN: nothing. JFK: cnj NN

 

1

 

1972

 

George McGovern (A) vs Richard M. Nixon* (AA)

 

2 Ge 43

 

GM: tr NN-SA. RMN: tr UR, sq VE

 

0

 

1976

 

Gerald Ford (AA) vs James E. Carter* (AA)

 

27 Cn 52

 

GF: tr NN, cnj NE. JEC: nothing

 

-1

 

1980

 

James E. Carter (AA) vs Ronald Reagan* (B)

 

21 Vi 05

 

JC: cnj ME. RR: tr ME.

 

0

 

1984

 

Ronald Reagan* (B) vs Walter F. Mondale (AA)

 

16 Sc 17

 

RR: sq SU. WM: tr PL.

 

0

 

1988

 

Michael Dukakis (AA) vs George Bush* (A)

 

0 Cp 45

 

MD: nothing. GB: nothing

 

0

 

1992

 

George Bush (A) vs William Clinton* (A)

 

13 Aq 29

 

GB: sx JU. WC: nothing

 

-1

 

1996

 

Robert Dole (A) vs William Clinton* (A)

 

28 Pi 00

 

RD: tr ME. WC: sq PF

 

0

 

The results are not quite as impressive as the Mars-Jupiter, but still quite compelling: just by counting the number of aspects and scoring for the candidate with the greater number, the results are 6-3 correct predictions for those cases where there is a difference! The numbers are still small, but 2:1 is pretty good! It’s also worth mentioning that there seem to be an inordinate number of nodal contacts to the Mars-Saturn with the successful candidates.

 

The Candidates in 2000:

 

George W. Bush has nothing aspecting the Mars-Saturn conjunction at 17 Ta 16.

Al Gore has Mercury sextiling, and Mars and Saturn squaring, the Mars-Saturn conjunction at 17 Ta 16.

The Edge: Al Gore.

Study 5 Solar Returns

 

Since we have reasonably good data on these sixteen elections, we can also use derivative charts based on these nativities. We can, for example, study each candidate’s solar return prior to the election and look for patterns. There are many things that we could look for; here, I will present only one. I have looked at the rulers of the four chart angles in the prior solar return (unprecessed, for the natal location), and summarized the major dignities and debilities in Table 10.

 

Table 10. Major dignities and debilities for the chart angles of the solar returns of successful and unsuccessful presidential candidates.

 

Rulership Exaltation In-sect Triplicity Detriment Fall Peregrine
Unsuccessful
Ruler 1st 4 1 2 2 0 6
Ruler 10th 6 1 1 1 1 4
Ruler 7th 0 1 0 6 1 5
Ruler 4th 0 1 2 3 2 8

Successful

Ruler 1st 2 2 4 1 1 2
Ruler 10th 2 1 3 3 2 5
Ruler 7th 6 0 2 3 2 1
Ruler 4th 6 1 1 1 3 6

 

The results are rather intriguing, but not, I confess, exactly what I would have expected. The most striking differences are in the sign rulership column. If the Ruler of the 1st or 10th House was in sign rulership, the candidate tended to be unsuccessful. If the Ruler of the 7th or the 4th was in rulership, the candidate tended to be successful. The other difference was the lower number of peregrine rulers of the 1st and 7th houses for the successful candidates.

 

The Candidates in 2000:

 

George W. Bush has a peregrine 7th House Ruler and a peregrine 1st House Ruler.

Al Gore has. a peregrine 1st House Ruler.

The Edge: Al Gore, with one less “inappropriate” peregrine placement.

 

Discussion:

 

This is the kind of study that pushes patience to the breaking point: I can say with complete confidence that I will still never be satisfied in my lifetime with the size of the data set! However, the hints in this study suggest that it is dangerous to make assumptions about which techniques work without examining what data we have.

 

While there are more techniques shown here that suggest a Gore victory than a Bush victory, the conclusion is only as good as the certainty of the methods. What we need is more systematic study of multiple techniques, so that the next time around we are prepared with a good sample of methods that we can apply during the preliminary round of candidate selection, so that we can see just how useful the combination is.

 

It is frustrating when little data is available. But we must start somewhere. We can also expand this work by repeating the method with candidates for lesser office, as well as seeing whether the same methods work for candidates in different countries using different political systems.

[1] J. Lee Lehman. 1998. Presidential Elections as Warfare. Horary Practitioner 9: 47-51.

[2] I would like to thank Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough for the work which has culminated in the AstroDataBank ®. All the data here is from the ADB, except for Ronald Reagan’s data, which was reported on their web site (http://www.astrodatabank.com/) as finally achieving B status. Full descriptions of the Rodden Ratings are also available on the site.

[3] Rudhyar, Dane. 1971. The Lunation Cycle. Shambhala: Berkeley, CA.

[4] Busteed, Marilyn and Dorothy Wergin. Phases of the Moon. AFA: Tempe, AZ.

[5] Ibid, page 19.

[6] Cramer, Frederick H. 1954. Astrology in Roman Law and Politics. The American Philosophical Society: Philadelphia.

[7] The ptolemaic aspects are: “conjunction”, sextile, square, trine and opposition. The reason that I have designated the conjunction in quotes is because many sources do not consider the conjunction to be an aspect, but a different kind of animal.