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 8^th 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 8^th phase is characterized by “liberation” and the sowing of seeds for the cycle that is to come. The 8^th 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 8^th 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 5^th or 6^th 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 1^st half to 2^nd 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 3^rd Phase natally. On January 20, 2001, he will be in the 1^st Phase of his progressed Lunation Cycle.

Al Gore is 6^th Phase natally. On January 20, 2001, he will be in the 5^th 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 7^th House shows up as considerably worse than the other angular houses, and the 10^th does not seem as productive as either the 1^st or 4^th.

 

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 1^st or 10^th House was in sign rulership, the candidate tended to be unsuccessful. If the Ruler of the 7^th or the 4^th was in rulership, the candidate tended to be successful. The other difference was the lower number of peregrine rulers of the 1^st and 7^th houses for the successful candidates.

 

The Candidates in 2000:

 

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

Al Gore has. a peregrine 1^st 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.