61 by GR Mark wrote: I think a lot of the media coverage I have seen is flawed. A lot of fuss over Ohio and Florida as the decisive swing state battlefields for the result. Its true they are absolutely crucial for for Romney. However, even if Obama loses Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana he can still win on electoral college votes! Romney needs to sweep up nearly all the swing states to win. Mark I think you're right, Mark. But the media is in the business of getting eyes on their product, and only a "horse-race" does that, not a "mostly baked cake". Gabe Quote Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:41 am
62 by Mark Waybread wrote: Unfortunately, what little astrology research time I have is being spent on that 3rd house thread, but for anyone w/ time for some muindane astrology, this election is predicted to be extremely close. Yes I think that is already demonstrably clear to anyone who has been watching the media. All the polls have been saying this for ages and so have the astrologers if you read any of the numerous links I have already posted up here. A major reason so many astrologers have predicted an extremely tight race well before the pollsters is due to the fact Mercury is stationary retrograde on election day. Take a look at these articles if you haven't already done so. http://politicalastrologyblog.com/2012/ ... -election/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-fran ... 37362.html http://jessicaadams.com/2012/09/24/merc ... astrology/ http://astrologynewsservice.com/news/as ... ove-dicey/ Waybread wrote: It would be interesting to look at presidential elections where one candidate lost by a landslide, and see whether the charts look dramatically different than for close elections. Examples might be Adlai Stevenson II, George McGovern and Barry Goldwater. Considering how tight this contest is I would have thought really close contests would be more revealing. I already had a discussion on that in regards Mercury Rx or stationary during election day charts or prior ingress charts in elections going back to 1856. http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6997 Here is a summary of the 8 closest Presidential contests taken from that thread: 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. Having said that it will be useful to have examples of landslide victories as comparative examples for future research. Its worth noting though that under the current system a candidate can gain a 'landslide' in terms of electoral college votes but only just scrape the popular vote. The best example cited below is that of Ronald Reagan in the 1980 contest who got 90.9% of electoral college votes but only 50.7% of the popular vote. Here is a link giving stats on just that issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... esidential From wikipedia: Presidential Presidential elections in the United States are indirect; they are not determined by the "popular vote", but by the Electoral College. Each state is allocated as many "electors" as it has Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress, and, at present, all states but Nebraska and Maine hold a "winner take all" vote, in which the winner of the popular vote in a state wins all electoral votes the state is eligible to cast (Nebraska and Maine give two electoral votes to the winner of the state and one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district within the state.). This allows for candidates to win 50% plus 1 votes but still get 100% of the electoral votes. For this reason, many presidential victories appear to be huge landslide victories when examining the electoral vote, but much less so when examining the popular vote; for example, in the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan won 90.9% of the electoral vote but 50.7% of the popular vote to Jimmy Carter's 41.0%. 1920 - the greatest percentage point margin in the popular vote (Harding 60.3% to Cox 34.1%). 1936 - the greatest electoral votes difference between winner and opponent-Roosevelt 523 to Landon 8. 1808 - the highest percentage for winner (James Madison 64.7%). 1984 - the highest number of electoral votes (Reagan 525). 1789 and 1792 - the highest percentage of Electoral College Votes (100% - George Washington was the only president to win a unanimous Electoral College victory. Washington received the maximum possible electoral votes in both the 1789 and 1792 election.) Popular votes Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% to Barry Goldwater's 38.5% in the 1964 presidential election Franklin D. Roosevelt's 60.8% to Alf Landon's 36.5% in the 1936 presidential election Richard Nixon's 60.7% to George McGovern's 37.5% in the 1972 presidential election Warren Harding's 60.3% to James M. Cox's 34.1% in the 1920 presidential election Ronald Reagan's 58.8% to Walter Mondale's 40.6% in the 1984 presidential election Theodore Roosevelt's 56.4% to Alton B. Parker's 37.6% in the 1904 presidential election Electoral votes James Monroe's 231 electoral votes to John Quincy Adams's 1 electoral vote in 1820. (99.2% margin) Franklin D. Roosevelt's 523 electoral votes to Alf Landon's 8 electoral votes in 1936. (97% margin) Ronald Reagan's 525 electoral votes to Walter Mondale's 13 electoral votes in 1984. (95.2% margin) Richard Nixon's 520 electoral votes to George McGovern's 17 electoral votes and John Hospers's 1 in 1972. (93.3% margin) The question is really what kind of 'charts' are we discussing here? Astrologers have been predicting this election with a wide variety of techniques: 1 Natal-Based on charts of candidates using transits, progressions, solar arcs, primaries, profections, returns, and hellenistic techniques such as zodiacal releasing. 2 Opening and closing of poll chart 3 Ingress charts-The prior Aries or Libra ingress charts. 4 The Ascensional chart of the ruler-i.e. Obama's Inauguration chart from Jan 2009 5 The Sunrise chart for election day 6 Eclipse and lunations prior to the election 7 Mundane charts for the USA-For example Sibly chart, US Constitution chart or US Presidential charts examined through transits, progressions, solar arcs, primaries, firdaria, profections, returns etc. 8 Candidates natal alignment to existing mundane charts. Utilising charts for USA, Presidency, prior Jupiter Saturn conjunction, eclipse or lunation. This is a hybrid of method 1 & 6/7. 9 Horary question on the election outcome There are probably other techniques I have missed out. Do chip in if you are aware of other approaches. Note: Most Indian astrologers seem to be relying on natal techniques based on planetary periods so I dont see that as fundamentally different to the natal techniques listed although the zodiac is obviously different. Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:35 am
63 by waybread Points well taken, Mark. With regard to "landslide" charts I was primarily thinking of the problem of left- or right-leaning astrologers reading into whatever charts or system they use, their own bias towards their prefered candidate. Ideally a seriously unequal election should make this more difficult. Less, ideally, it could indicate the extent to which personal bias clouds chart readings. I wonder if horary (#9) is legitimate for questions of this nature. I don't practice horary astrology, but my understanding is that it isn't amenable to questions liable to be asked by many querants over a long period of time. Quote Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:45 pm
64 by james_m hey mark, i happened to read a few comments on tyls board that i thought were good observations on the astro around this election.. 2 things..one from dean bascis about saturn in scorpio always results in a conservative repub win... he gave the data, but i thought i would quote him here in pigquote.. the other comment was from kathy rose on the sun/moon midpoint in obama's chart having uranus and pluto running thru it.. same deal for his asc/mid midpoint which is close to the same... she suggests this is a radical change of some sort for obama indicative of major change and implying to her that he will not win essentially.. i am paraphrasing, but you get the drift! i am not home to examine the data more closely.. Quote Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:06 pm
65 by Mark Waybread wrote: I wonder if horary (#9) is legitimate for questions of this nature. I don't practice horary astrology, but my understanding is that it isn't amenable to questions liable to be asked by many querants over a long period of time. I am discussing that precise issue with other members on the horary forum just now! http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7010 Here is the link: To summarise my view from that thread: I am no fan of horary charts for mundane questions. Establishing a firm connection between the querant and quesited is always crucial in horary. Unless you are working for the Obama or Romney campaigns or they come and ask you a question as the astrologer I question the legitimacy of such charts. To put it bluntly I also think most of the time using horary for mundane questions is intellectually lazy. Mundane astrology is hard work. It isn't traditionally regarded as the most complex branch of astrology for no reason. You have to pour over lots of different kinds of charts to reach a proper delineation. Horary for elections so typifies our 'quick fix' culture. Of course your entitled to disagree. Anthony Louis has put up a horary on the US Presidential election. I respect Anthony Louis and generally like his work. I have posted these views on Anthony's site. Last edited by Mark on Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total. As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:06 pm
66 by james_m okay, i lied.. i don't like doing astro on this laptop, but i do have some astro software, so i went and looked... 7 cardinal 57 is where obama's sun/moon midpoint is.. in my crazy system of using the 22 and a 1/2 degree aspect - that is 1/2 a 45,or 1/4 a square aspect, i note that this midpoint has natal jupiter on it too which makes sense if you think jupiter has a direct connection to politicians charts.. turns out transiting jupiter is 135 his natal jupiter here in this election window, so t jupiter by my 16th harmonic aspect use, is also on his sun/moon midpoint... one would have to look at 16th harmonics to see what i am looking at fully.. Quote Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:21 pm
67 by Mark James_M wrote: i happened to read a few comments on tyls board that i thought were good observations on the astro around this election.. 2 things..one from dean bascis about saturn in scorpio always results in a conservative republican win... he gave the data, but i thought i would quote him here in pigquote.. Tut tut James, You saw this first on Skyscript ages ago! I quoted Michael O'Reilly earlier in this thread who made this exact point about Saturn ingressing Scorpio historically favouring the Republicans. I suspect the poster over there just took up O'Reilly's ideas. Still this thread is getting rather long so I guess its easy to miss. Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:15 pm
68 by james_m i just rolled it into a post that caught the 2 most relevant observations, 1 old and 1 very recent... thanks for pointing out the history on that! Quote Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:32 pm
69 by zoidsoft There's another reason why elections are getting closer these days. The corporate media can smell the money coming from the citizens united decision to let an unlimited flow of cash represent speech ("money talks, bs walks"). A candidate does not have to use up all of their campaign contributions and the media wants to capitalize as much as possible on this windfall. A landslide generates lack of interest because everyone knows who will win, but a close race causes each side to buy up more air waves. Therefore it is in the media's best interest to spin political contests as being "too close to call" if at all possible. I wouldn't doubt for a moment that early polling has a lot to do with this manipulation of public perception and decisions on which stories to run in the headlines with these motivations as a top priority. Over a few months, the filtering out of stories that serve to widen the gap create the impression that only a few important things are happening. Nothing can be further than the truth. Curtis Manwaring Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC Quote Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:20 pm
70 by Mark Well I am not an American so I concede I am a foreigner looking in. However, it seems to me despite the unifying sense of national identity Americans are increasingly divided in terms of how they envision the future. So this election is tapping into what I think is a genuine existential divide and crisis. In particular around the importance of social issues such as immigration, abortion, and state intervertion. Notwithstanding the key economic factors that always influence all elections. I do agree the funding situation for both parties is monstrous and the polls can influence the outcome. I think there should be a ban on polls before the election as they have in France. Plus the vagaries of the Electoral College mean all the focus is put into a few states. Large numbers of Americans are effectively disenfranchised under this system. If you are a Democrat in Texas or Republican in Massachusetts your vote will have little impact. Its made worse by the winner takes all approach in Presidential elections where most states give all their Electoral College votes to one candidate. It would surely make more sense if Electoral College seats were divided up according to the actual votes in a state. This might help remove the perception of a 'red' and 'blue' America. In some respects this system polarises things. Another really close result like 2000 will put the electoral system into crisis and lead to calls for constitutional reform. However, overall the reality is the GOP benefit from the current system more than the Democrats. For example, if neither candidate get the 270 Electoral College required in this election it will go to a vote of the House of Representatives where each state will get to cast one vote for their preferred candidate. Put simply, there are far more states that have a Republican majority. The Democrats rely on seats from larger more populous states such as California and New York. However, there are significantly less 'Democrat' states. Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:08 am
71 by zoidsoft Mark, There's a really good video on the subject where Chris Hedges speaks about his book "Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt" (how Pluto in Cap, Uranus in Aries of him...). He speaks about the Occupy movement near the end of his talk (ends at about 47:00) before taking questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6hffN0LFbs The corporate oligarchs have taken over the political system and the billionaires are fighting this one out using average Americans as pawns. Curtis Manwaring Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC Quote Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:40 am
Astrological planets invisible to normal human sight 72 by lihin Good morning, Those who neither reside in nor are citizens of a country, viz. the USofA, tend to see it at a distance, as an 'object'. Each country's mass media are positively skewed for that country. Many countries have multi-party systems with more ensuing political variety than a two-party, 'winner takes all' system country like the USofA. To many, B. Obama seems like a G. W. Bush 'light'. Astrologically, most publishing mundane astrologers seem to be quite tardy to take notice of the death of the 20th century, 10-planet astrological paradigm with Pluto as the 10th. Since 2003 - 2004 at least Haumea, Makemake and Eris (She has about 30 % more mass than Pluto!) have, with Ceres (once a planet, then an asteroid,) joined the group of dwarf planets, all of them 'outer' for mundane astrological purposes. If one counts the permutations, even leaving out extreme cases like Eris - Mars, one has about a score or so of new synodic cycles to include in analyses and delineations. For those searching for 'fitting' hindsight examples to include in new books, many exciting new possibilities are offered. The 'Pluto-happiness' of much late 20th century modern astrology may thus soon diminish. How many more dwarf planets will be discovered? Sedna, with an orbital period of about 11,000 years, may be one. How many astrological symbols can an astrologer's mind coherently work with? Perhaps the decision of most Indian and some traditional Western astrologers to deliberately limit their list of planets to those visible to unaided human sight may prove neither antiquated nor absurd, especially in view of the fact that astrological qualities attributed to the new planets have mostly been stripped from the old ones. Best regards, lihin Last edited by lihin on Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total. Non esse nihil non est. Quote Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:21 am