There is a lot of discussion on astrological websites and forums about what the stationary-retrograde Mercury during the forthcoming Presidential election day might indicate.

http://politicalastrologyblog.com/2012/ ... -election/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-fran ... 37362.html

http://jessicaadams.com/2012/09/24/merc ... astrology/

Many people cast their minds back to the controversial result in 2000 with featured a stationary Mercury during election day. Those with longer memories recall the 1960 election too which had a Mercury Rx on election day. So from all this can we anticipate a disputed result that will end up in the courts or allegations of fraud? Equally, could this be an exceptionally, tight result in terms of not just the popular vote but the electoral college count of states? Possibly, however, if we look more deeply into American electoral history the answer is much less clear cut.

Only 4 previous Presidential elections in 1908, 1940, 1960, and 2000 featured a stationary or retrograde Mercury on election day. Only two of these elections produced a very tight or controversial result: 1960 and 2000. The Republican William Taft comfortably won the 1908 election and the result was not controversial. The result of the Presidential election of 1940 was a very solid majority for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This result was not contentious either. However, that Presidency coincided with the Japanese attack on Peal Harbor in December 1941. That may perhaps explain this. A Stationary Mercury in the 2000 election did precede the 9/11 attacks. I cant see any such link to the retrograde Mercury in 1908. In the case of 1960 The Presidential election did precede the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Assassination of Kennedy. However, I cannot find any link between a stationary or Rx Mercury in election charts and subsequent assassinations. I have though found what appears to be an interesting link with ingress charts which I will discuss later.

Before I look at that and the link with stationary or retrograde Mercury and the presidential death cycle I want to examine elections which produced a very tight victory for one candidate over the other.

Since the Republican party contested its first Presidential election in 1856 and the modern two party system was born there have been 8 Presidential elections which produced very tight results.

The closest results in Presidential Elections since 1856 were as follows:

1. 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes ?defeats? Samuel J Tilden by 1 (disputed) electoral college vote on less of the popular vote. 47.9 (Hayes) , 51.0% ( Tilden)***

2. 1880 James Garfield (R) defeats Winfield Hancock (D) by 59 Electoral Votes and won the popular vote by 0.1%.

3. 1884 Grover Cleveland (D) defeats James Blaine (R) by 37 Electoral Votes and wins the popular vote by 0.7%.

4. 1888 Benjamin Harrison (R) defeats Grover Cleveland (D) by 37 Electoral Votes but obtains 0.8% less of the popular vote.***

5. 1916 Woodrow Wilson (D) defeats Charles Hughes (R) by 23 Electoral Votes and wins the popular vote by 3.1%.

6. 1960 John F Kennedy (D) defeats Richard Nixon (R) by 84 Electoral Votes but only wins the popular vote by just 0.1%

7. 2000 George W. Bush (R) defeats Al Gore (D) by 5 Electoral Votes but loses the popular vote by 0.5%.***

8. 2004 George W. Bush (R) defeats John Kerry (D) by 35 Electoral Votes and wins the popular vote by 2.4%.

***In 1876, 1888 and 2000 the losing candidate obtained more of the popular vote.


If a stationary or retrograde Mercury on election day was the signature of a very tight or contested election why was it absent in so many of the contests like this in American history? Of the 8 contests listed above only two: 1960 and 2000 featured Mercury Rx (1960) or a stationay Mercury (2000) on election day.

The election of 1876 probably produced the most controversial result in modern American political history. However, Mercury was direct that day.
In that election the Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes ?defeated? Samuel J Tilden by 1 electoral college vote and less of the popular vote. Based on the popular vote 47.9 voted for Hayes while 51.0% voted for the democrat Tilden.

Initially Tilden had 184 electoral votes to Hayes's 165, with 20 votes uncounted. These 20 electoral votes were in dispute in three states: Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina; each party reported its candidate had won the state, while in Oregon one elector was declared illegal (as an "elected or appointed official") and replaced. The 20 disputed electoral votes were ultimately awarded to Hayes after a bitter legal and political battle, giving him the victory. Political corruption was rife in this process and the Republicans used all their political muscle to get to an Electoral Commission to allocate them the Electoral College votes required to win the election. Eventually, 3 days before the inauguration date (then March 4th) Hayes was declared the winner.

Historians believe an informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877. In return for the Democrats' acquiescence in Hayes's election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democrats.

The result led to such a political stink that many described Hayes term in office as his ?Fraululency?. This was the first presidential election in 24 years in which the Democratic candidate won a majority of the popular vote. It was one of only 4 elections (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000) where the popular vote winner was defeated.

From the evidence of previous electoral results there is no clear link between Mercury going stationary or retrograde and very tight electoral contests. As for disputed or controversial contests it is noteable that the elections of 1908 and 1940 had Mercury Rx on election day but produced comfortable victories for the winner without any controversy. Equally, the most controversial election since 1856 took place in 1876 without a Mercury Rx on election day. Indeed Mercury was direct and fast in motion that day.

I therefore decided to shift my research away from election day charts to prior ingresses. Ingress charts are an ancient method delineating the year based on the suns passage through the cardinal signs. The technique is mentioned by Ptolemy (2nd century AD) but the technique really developed in mundane astrology under the Persian and Arab astrologers in the early medieval period.

In their approach we look first to the Aries Ingress. If the sign rising in the Aries ingress is fixed we rely solely o the Aries ingress. If the sign is mutable we look at the Libra Ingress too. However, if the sign is cardinal we look at all four ingress charts.

In the case of US Presidential election both the Aries and Libra ingress are always worth studying. Not least as the Libra ingress is the Ingress to immediately precede the presidential election.

Might a stationary or Rx Mercury in Ingress charts indicate a link with a tight or controversial Presidential contests? As it turned out it seems not. At least not in any conclusive sense. However, in looking at these charts I stumbled on another fascinating connection by accident. In particular years which feature a stationary or Rx Mercury in a prior Aries and/or Libra ingress seem heavily linked to a Presidency where the office holder will either die in office, suffer serious illness or be publicly censored i.e. impeached.

Going back to 1856 I looked at every election which featured a stationary or Rx Mercury in either a prior Aries or Libra ingress. This doesn?t occur most of the time. The Ingress charts do not consistently indicate very close Presidential contests. Of the 14 Presidential terms with a prior ingress with Mercury Rx only 4 of these led to exceptionally tight contests: 1880, 1884, 1916, and 1960. If this was a reliable indicator one would have expected the contests in 1876 and 2000 to show up.

What I find remarkable though are the Presidential terms that a stationary or Rx Mercury occurred in

Presidential Election years with Mercury Rx in prior Ingresses:

1864: Libra Ingress: President Abraham Lincoln Assassinated

1868: Aries Ingress: President Andrew Johnson Impeached

1880: Aries Ingress: President James Garfield Assassinated

1884: Libra Ingress: President Chester Arthur secretly diagnosed with ?Brights
Disease?. Dies in 1886

1900: Aries Ingress: President William McKinley Assassinated

1904: Libra Ingress: No obvious link

1916: Libra Ingress: (Stationary Rx) US Enters WWI
President Woodrow Wilson suffered a Stroke in Office

1920: Aries Ingress: President Warren Harding Died in Office of a Heart attack

1940: Aries Ingress: Japanese Attack on Peal Harbour. US Enters WWII
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt dies in Office in April 1945. He had suffered from Polio and his health had rapidly deteriorated from late 1944

.
1956: Libra Ingress: Dwight Eisenhower, endured three major medical crises during his two terms in office. He suffered a heart attack in September 1955, underwent surgery for Crohn's disease in June 1956, and suffered a mild stroke in November 1957.

1960: Aries Ingress: President Kennedy Assassinated.

1976: Libra Ingress: No Obvious Link. Iran Embassy Hostage Crisis

1992: Aries ingress: No Obvious link. World trade Centre bombing (1993) Waco siege, Oklahoma City Bombing( 1995)

1996: Libra Ingress: President Clinton - Impeachment Proceedings

2012: Aries Ingress: ?

Total: 14 Presidential Terms featuring a prior Aries or Libra ingress with Mercury Rx

Results:


List features all 4 Presidents who were assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy

List features the only 2 Presidents who faced Impeachment Proceedings: Andrew Johnson & Bill Clinton

List features only Presidential terms where the office holder died in office: President Dying on Office-Warren Harding and Franklin Delano Roosevelt

List features 5 Presidents who were seriously ill or incapacitated in office-Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower. John F Kennedy also should be included here as he secretly hid his diagnosis of the life threatening Addisons Disease.

3 Presidential terms that do not fit pattern: 1904, 1976, 1992

Based on the pattern outlined here it therefore fairly likely that the office of Presidency will become seriously weakened in its next term. This could feature an assassination, serious health issue or political censure of the President through impeachment. This has occurred in almost 80% of the Presidential terms that featured a prior Rx or stationary Rx Mercury in the preceding Aries or Libra ingress of a Presidential election year.

However, this pattern is not infallible since 3 of the total 14 Presidential terms listed did not fit into this pattern.

This all raises the question of why should Mercury indicate all this at all? Logically, Mercury doesn?t necessarily indicate the President in many ingress charts. My theory is that this reflects the US Presidential chart which is strongly under the influence of Mercury and my research suggests both the ASC and MC are Mercury ruled i.e. Virgo and Gemini respectively. That is probably, a separate topic but I thought I would flag it up here.

Note: Since the Aries ingress of 1936 had a fixed sign rising I excluded the Libra ingress for that year from my survey even though Mercury was Rx.

FDR died in April 1945 and this strictly was outside the 1940 Presidential term. However, Mercury Rx did feature in two prior ingresses before his presidency in both 1936 and 1940. Its remarkable to think that Roosevelt manaaged to hide his Polio and use of a wheel Chair from the American public. Such a situation would be impossible in the media obsessed era we live in today.

great post mark. thanks!

i have to question just how central the role of mercury retro in your study is though.. it might be, or there may be some other astro factors that you haven't thought to consider.. all of this seems to be born out of the role of mercury retro, so fair enough to make that a study. however, it doesn't necessarily mean it is the only astro factor that might feed into all of this as i see it.

great post mark. thanks!

i have to question just how central the role of mercury retro in your study is though.. it might be, or there may be some other astro factors that you haven't thought to consider.. all of this seems to be born out of the role of mercury retro, so fair enough to make that a study. however, it doesn't necessarily mean it is the only astro factor that might feed into all of this as i see it.

I have studied the Aries and Libra Ingress charts going back over 150 years. This is a current hypothesis of mine. If you dont accept the notion on principle that is fair enough. However, I have to to say your argument here is so generalised it could be used against just about any statement in astrology. Naturally, I accept a myriad of astrological variables are involved. Of course other factors could explain this phenomena. I am sure we could find verification for these outcomes through nativities, national charts, pre-lunations, eclipses etc. However, this approach is more specific. I am not seeking to duck the hard work in delineating each ingress or national chart on its own merits. I still see the benefit of working on each chart in a holistic sense.

What does seem inescapable though is that this hypothesis appears to link in very well to Presidents who were assassinated, died in office, suffered serious illness or were impeached. Having said that it is only a hypothesis not a fixed dogma. I could of course be wrong. The results might be blind coincidence. Although, in astrology we know there is no such thing....If the next US Presidency doesn't fit the pattern I will need to reconsider my current hypothesis. Until then I am offering it as a contribution to the discussion.

Its certainly, a different approach from judging such phenomena with the standard nativities or transits to national charts. Plus I need to be clear it is not simply random but goes to support the Presidential chart based on Virgo ASC/Gemini MC I advocate. I will be discussing that chart on the main thread.

regards

Mark

on the surface mark, connecting ingress charts with mercury retro to the fate of presidents seems to have more bearing then the mercury retro for the outcome of an election.. i thank you for articulating all that and am glad this astrological circle hasn't fallen victim to the endless theory of mercury retro having to screw things up.. i never agreed with that theory to begin with.. now that you have found some use for it in the ingress charts connected to the year of an election and the presidents chances of survival, i have to cast my doubt out of habit!

Many people cast their minds back to the controversial result in 2000 with featured Mercury retrograde (Rx) during election day)

Mercury wasn't simply retrograde on election day 2000; it stationed and if memory serves (I'm not home and have no ephemeris) it stationed just about the time the polls closed in Eastern Florida. Florida has two time zones.

And on election day 2012, Mercury stations again.

Tom wrote:

Mercury wasn't simply retrograde on election day 2000; it stationed and if memory serves (I'm not home and have no ephemeris) it stationed just about the time the polls closed in Eastern Florida. Florida has two time zones.

Thanks. Your right, Mercury stationed at the 2000 election. Although I think on that occasion it was stationary direct rather than retrograde. I believe it went direct just before the end of polling day. I haven't been able to check myself yet but in his article Chris Brennan states it went direct at 21:30 Eastern Standard Time on Election night. On election day in 2012 we are at the opposite end of the cycle as Mercury starts its stationary-retrograde period that day.

There has been a tendency to link retrograde and stationary Mercury periods together but there is an argument for looking at them quite separately. Certainly, Mercury Rx can be moving fairly fast.

I have never found that much of practical use in traditional sources on this topic beyond establishing retrograde motion is a serious debility for a planet. I am even less clear what the traditional view on stationary planets is. However, one can infer that a planet appearing to stop its motion before changing direction must be highly unpredictable.

Mark

Mark wrote:I have never found that much of practical use in traditional sources on this topic beyond establishing retrograde motion is a serious debility for a planet. I am even less clear what the traditional view on stationary planets is. However, one can infer that a planet appearing to stop its motion before changing direction must be highly unpredictable.

Schmidt gave the analogy that a planet changing direction (in a "phasis" condition) is like a formation of geese heading south for the winter; the goose that breaks formation is like the planet that changes direction. It draws attention to itself and therefore has the ability to set the agenda or change the subject in the same way that an announcement puts all others on hold. Another analogy he gave is when a professor is just beginning his class and all the students have just sat down and the professor begins speaking, then 30 seconds later a student enters the room late and draws the attention of the entire class interrupting the professor, that student has the full attention of the class and is making a "phasis" (an appearance that speaks). He drew a parallel comparison to the word "logos" which is an inversion of phasis in that a "logos" is a speaking that causes something to "appear".

I think planets that are stationary about to change direction are a big deal in infuencing the overall chart. They are typically overlooked by many astrologers.. this has been my observation. I think they have a big influence on a chart, more than retro planets. I use a window of about 5 days for this, although technically the planet could be moving forward or retro according to the software settings one uses. one can usually adjust the astro software settings to highlight stationary planets. I wish folks would talk more about this feature or even half as much as people talk about retro planets. I think a distinction needs to be made, but if one only uses a 1 day window for stationary, it isn't.

Mark wrote: Mercury stationed at the 2000 election. Although I think on that occasion it was stationary direct rather than retrograde. I believe it went direct just before the end of polling day. I haven't been able to check myself yet but in his article Chris Brennan states it went direct at 21:30 Eastern Standard Time on Election night.

According Solar Fire Mercury was going to stationing on November 7th (Washington time) but on November 6th it had the heliacal rising (at 5:29 am), which is obviously not the same.

On election day in 2012 we are at the opposite end of the cycle as Mercury starts its stationary-retrograde period that day.

That's very different, true?

There has been a tendency to link retrograde and stationary Mercury periods together but there is an argument for looking at them quite separately.

Agreed 100%

I have never found that much of practical use in traditional sources on this topic beyond establishing retrograde motion is a serious debility for a planet. I am even less clear what the traditional view on stationary planets is. However, one can infer that a planet appearing to stop its motion before changing direction must be highly unpredictable.

A lot of astrologers explained planetary phases in nativities, Bezza always used heliacal phases and taught to his students.
Curtis is right, it's impossible not noticing a planet in phase.
I don't know in mundane, no idea. It would be interesting to find quotes,

Zoidsoft wrote:

Schmidt gave the analogy that a planet changing direction (in a "phasis" condition) is like a formation of geese heading south for the winter; the goose that breaks formation is like the planet that changes direction. It draws attention to itself and therefore has the ability to set the agenda or change the subject in the same way that an announcement puts all others on hold. Another analogy he gave is when a professor is just beginning his class and all the students have just sat down and the professor begins speaking, then 30 seconds later a student enters the room late and draws the attention of the entire class interrupting the professor, that student has the full attention of the class and is making a "phasis" (an appearance that speaks). He drew a parallel comparison to the word "logos" which is an inversion of phasis in that a "logos" is a speaking that causes something to "appear".

Hello Curtis,

I'm sorry. I never properly thanked you for that post which I found very helpful. So in nativities could this fit planets which draw attention to themselves and go against conventional norms?

I know this isn't the traditional forum but what sources would you recommend for more on this issue?

Thanks

Mark

Mark wrote:

. So in nativities could this fit planets which draw attention to themselves and go against conventional norms?

I know this isn't the traditional forum but what sources would you recommend for more on this issue?

which would be these conventional norms? Ptolemy talks about the effects of phases in nativities, and Paulus Alexandrinus and whatever commentator to Ptolemy and Ibn Ezra I'm sure whoever talks about .... where is the news in Schmidt words? I never heard to talk Schmidt, but it does not seem a secret to me...

Anyway...

"In general the mode of domination is considered as falling under these five forms: trine, house, exaltation, term, and PHASE or aspect" Tetr, III, 2

margherita

Good morining,

Ms Margherita's comment is pertinent in my humble opinion. Not only Hellenistic authors but Mediaeval ones (see for example Introductions to Traditional Astrology: Abu Ma'shar & al-Qabisi, translated, edited and commented by Dr. phil. Benjamin Dykes) state clear delineations of planetary phases.

Why should the basic delineations of the planetary phases essentially differ in natal from mundane astrology? One perhaps tends to forget that the latter came first in astrological history, is, according to Claudius Ptolemy Tetrabiblos Book 2, 'stronger' than the former, 'universal' rather than 'particular' according to Aristotle's definitions.

However, we may be drifting off topic.

Best regards,

lihin