What the Republican strategists are now grappling with is how to attract more young, minority, and female voters. They do not necessarily identify with the conservative values of older white guys. The Tea Party still doesn't get this.

This non astrology statement needs to be addressed. The Tea Party first of all is more movement than party and secondly what you're advocating, tacitly or otherwise is virtual one party rule. If Republicans become Democrats where are the choices?

Also John McCain, promoted amnesty, the supposed deal killer for the GOP with Hispanics, more than any other Republican. Romney received about the same number of Hispanic votes as McCain. Obviously pandering is not going to work.

Finally, Romney received 3 million fewer votes than did McCain. In fact if Romney had those 3 million votes, he would have won the popular vote. I don't know if that would have translated into an electoral college victory. The vast majority of those 3 million voters were white. Romney didn't get the base out. Young, old, Latino female or any other method of Balkanizing the electorate had nothing to do with that.

Tom wrote:

Obviously pandering is not going to work.

With respect Tom that statement is just as political as the comment of Waybread you picked up.

I dont want to stiffle any rational political discussion here. We are talking about an election after all. Can I just request we all avoid stereotyping or denegrating the other side of the political divide. Generally, people have been extremely well behaved on the Skyscript mundane forum and this thread has been no exception to date. Still, its amazing how things can degenerate once you open the pandoras box of party politics.

Mark

Thanks everybody for chopping up my thesis. That's what I was looking for. I stand corrected on the comment that certain states have more than 50% latino population. The source I am recalling did specifically state 50% but they must have used another small piece of the demographic, perhaps a younger age bracket. It may have also related to a projected demograhic change made for some future date.

I will also cede the Louisiana Purchase argument but will take the Spanish territory out west and in Florida instead. I mentioned the Spanish territory won by the USA in the Mexican War under Polk in my original comment

Now getting beyond these two points, would anybody like to revisit my thesis that Latino populations may become majority populations in states which correspond to the Spanish and Florida territories by the transition of the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction series from earth to air by 2020?

Thanks

Tom wrote:

What the Republican strategists are now grappling with is how to attract more young, minority, and female voters. They do not necessarily identify with the conservative values of older white guys. The Tea Party still doesn't get this.

This non astrology statement needs to be addressed. The Tea Party first of all is more movement than party and secondly what you're advocating, tacitly or otherwise is virtual one party rule. If Republicans become Democrats where are the choices?

Also John McCain, promoted amnesty, the supposed deal killer for the GOP with Hispanics, more than any other Republican. Romney received about the same number of Hispanic votes as McCain. Obviously pandering is not going to work.

Finally, Romney received 3 million fewer votes than did McCain. In fact if Romney had those 3 million votes, he would have won the popular vote. I don't know if that would have translated into an electoral college victory. The vast majority of those 3 million voters were white. Romney didn't get the base out. Young, old, Latino female or any other method of Balkanizing the electorate had nothing to do with that.

Tom, if you break down my highlighted statement, you will see that it is in accord with your first paragraph. I am clear on the difference between the Tea Party and the Republican Party; but also how they overlap in terms of particular candidates.

I am a real news junkie, preferring middle-of-the road sources, but even liberal NPR does interview conservative spokespeople. Ironically as I type my TV is tuned to conservative think-tank representatives. My comments about the Republicans have just been reiterated by these people!

Raw numbers count less in elections than percentages. A presidential candidate in a two-party system simply has to crack the over-50% mark

I just saw a break-down that the only constituencies that Romney carried were white males and older citizens. If you look at the younger population cohorts coming up through the system, they are now increasingly diverse and Democratic. I think it's a political truism that if someone votes for the same party 3 times as a young person, s/he is likely to be a lifelong member of that party.

I am not advocating a one-party system. What tends to be the case in US elections, notwithstanding, is that candidates have to appeal to the less moderate members of their party to get the nomination; and then to shift to the center in order to win the election. Neither the far right or left is likely to gain the White House. They do have strong chances in particular congressional districts.

"Pandering"? Would you accuse a candidate of "pandering" to middle class white people? How about terms like listening to ones constituents and being responsive to them. Keeping in mind that the Hispanic population is the fastest growing segment of the electorate, at present. McCain lost across multiple axes, independently of his views on immigration reform.

The fact also is that geodemographics are strongly entrenched in both campagin planning as well as other sorts of marketing. People who are unlikely to vote of any persuasion get identified. "Balkanization"? Call it segmentation. It's here and criticizing it won't change it.

Is there any astrology here? Of course. The larger point is that political science and astrology seem to be miles apart in terms of what influences election outcomes. If the students of voting behaviour are correct, mundane astrology becomes one very tricky business indeed. We can't really construct a chart for Hispanic voters, soccer moms, or for Florida seniors. The factors influencing US elections today are far more complex than the issues that faced the old monarchies and elitist voting structures of days of yore.

Thank heaven for Bernadette Brady. No more attack ads, mindless campaign promises, robo-calls, geodemographics, or media hysteria.

RegulusAstrology wrote:Thanks everybody for chopping up my thesis. That's what I was looking for. I stand corrected on the comment that certain states have more than 50% latino population. The source I am recalling did specifically state 50% but they must have used another small piece of the demographic, perhaps a younger age bracket. It may have also related to a projected demograhic change made for some future date.

I will also cede the Louisiana Purchase argument but will take the Spanish territory out west and in Florida instead. I mentioned the Spanish territory won by the USA in the Mexican War under Polk in my original comment

Now getting beyond these two points, would anybody like to revisit my thesis that Latino populations may become majority populations in states which correspond to the Spanish and Florida territories by the transition of the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction series from earth to air by 2020?

Thanks

Regulus, I suggest you turf out the idea of the Louisiana Purchase or any of the other blocks of land ceded to the US as having any traction in US electoral politics or its mundane astrology.

There are major sectional political behaviours in the US, but they just don't break down along these lines. The closest one I can think of would be the old Confederacy states, for evangelicals and large percentages of African Americans.

There are congressional districts in the US that are majority Hispanic. Some cities (excluding separately incorporated suburbs) are majority Hispanic, such as El Paso, Texas.

At roughly 47% Hispanic, New Mexico could easily become majority Hispanic. But it is not a very populous state.

Astrologically I don't think you will find a Hispanic signature.

Re: Tom's points, above, Hispanics are not an entirely unified voting block. But astrologically you can't point to a single chart or even suite of charts, planet, sign, or house.

Regulus Astrology wrote:

I will also cede the Louisiana Purchase argument but will take the Spanish territory out west and in Florida instead. I mentioned the Spanish territory won by the USA in the Mexican War under Polk in my original comment

Being historically accurate we are really discussing 4 different dates when former Spanish or Mexican territories were acquired by the USA

1 1819-Florida. This included much of modern Louisiana too. Formalised in the Adams-Onis treaty, or Transcontinental Treaty in 1819:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams-On%C3%ADs_Treaty

2 1845-Annexation of Texas and incorporation as US state. However, its western and southern border was in dispute with Mexico. It seems to have been a matter of US government policy to leave the boundaries vague when Texas was admitted as a state to allow for further expansion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation

3 1848-Mexican cession of much of the territory of modern SW of USA. Mexico formally conceded US sovereignty in territories comprising the modern states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado west of the Rockies. Texas also formally expanded its border southwards/westwards. This was formalised in the Treaty of Guadeluope-Hidalgo in 1848:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_ ... pe_Hidalgo


4 1853-The Gadsden Purchase-The US acquired the southern boundaries of modern states of Arizona and New Mexico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_Purchase
Regulus Astrology wrote:

Now getting beyond these two points, would anybody like to revisit my thesis that Latino populations may become majority populations in states which correspond to the Spanish and Florida territories by the transition of the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction series from earth to air by 2020?

Based on current US census figures I cannot see this happening in any US state except New Mexico. The only other exception would be if Puerto Rico joins as a state:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7016

On current projections California and Texas may be approaching this by the 2030's but not 2020. Of course the big issue is the level of illegal immigration in the USA. I have read estimates of illegal immigrant levels s in the USA ranging from 7 million to 20 million:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_im ... ted_States

I dont know what percentage are Hispanic but its been estimated at nearly 80% of the total. Following an immigration amnesty or liberalization we will no doubt find Hispanic populations that are significantly higher than currently recorded in census figures.

Astrologically, though I would see the period following the next Jupiter-Saturn conjunction in 2020 being the era when many of these states gain Hispanic majorities. However, I dont think it will be a uniform pattern. I know that doesn't fit your current theory but I think 2020 is just too soon based on current demographic trends.

Waybread wrote:

This does not necessarily mean the USA will break up after 2020, only that Latino voters will fully dominate electoral politics in those states after 2020. This is a thesis I have been playing with and I would welcome other comments on it.

Politically this gives the Republicans the real headache that in a couple of decades Texas may be leaning more Democrat than Republican. The same could happen in Arizona. That would be a disaster for the Republicans in terms of Electoral College votes for the Presidency. Clearly, there needs to be a much stronger appeal made to Hispanics than at present to prevent such trends developing. As Tom pointed out George Bush was fairly successful in that respect. Its interesting that unlike the currently predominant Tea party leaning Republican Congress Bush was liberal on immigration and favoured the Dream Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act

We tend to think of Texas as solid GOP territory today but it was only Nixon's 'southern strategy' from the late 1960's that shifted white southern conservative votes towards the Republicans. This became entrenched in the 1980's with the realignment of southern states towards the Republicans under Ronald Reagan. As that demographic group shrinks in many states the Republicans can no longer rely on that strategy delivering them election victories in the future.

The party needs to realign itself in the same way Nixon did in the late 1960's. I suspect it may take the GOP another electoral loss before that message really sinks home. Many on the right of the Republican party still think Romney lost because he was too liberal rather than too conservative. In particular his shift from a moderate Republican to one trying to appeal to the Tea party wing. He didn't really inspire the conservative base.

Your quite right that moderate Republican need to adopt a right wing stance to get through the primaries but then try appeal to moderates and independents in a Presidential campaign. This was Romney's dilemma. However, a lot people on the right of the Republican party are unwilling to concede that inspiring conservative opinion and 'getting out the base' is increasingly not enough. Immigration policy is clearly going to be a key issue in deciding the fate of the Republicans over the next few years.

I agree with your point that America may eventually adopt a legal bi-lingual status in the same way Canada has today. If you visits places like southern Florida or southern California this is already becoming a reality. In future an ability to speak Spanish and communicate effectively in that language is going to be be a fundamental requirement for political office in much of the US.

Mark

Waybread wrote:

Hmmph.

So don't bother voting, people. It will make no difference to an election outcome.

I wonder if her system "works" for other countries.

Oh, like China which changed leadership [sort of] around the same time.

I hardly expected you to be a fan as I know you gravitate very much to a strongly freewill view of astrology. Talking to Brady its true she does think the American system is so well attuned to the Venus cycle that results are strongly favouring one side or the other beforehand.

Its always a dilemma for astrologers that if things are so predetermined why bother? Reading Ptolemy he said it assists in providing us with equinamity in the knowledge of future events. Valens also seems to view astrology providing a kind inner peace in the knowledge we could not really control our fate but rather our reaction to it.

Equally, if everything is freewill why bother with astrology? I personally, think freewill is much more restricted on the collective level than the individual. However, to confirm that we need effective methods of prediction. That is why I think Brady's work is interesting.

I am not advocating social apathy. Just look at what the followers of Mahatma Gandhi, the Civil rights movement or the Anti-Apartheid movement achieved. Then there are campaigners like the Dalai Lama who struggle on against what seems implacable political opposition.

I really identify with the thoughts of EF Schumacher here:

'

We must do what we conceive to be the right thing, and not bother our heads or burden our souls with whether we are going to be successful. Because if we don't do the right thing, we'll be doing the wrong thing, and we will just be part of the disease, and not a part of the cure.''
- E.F. Schumacher, A Guide For the Perplexed

I suppose we need to balance such an individual outlook with the old saying that 'politics is the art of the possible'.

Moreover, as astrologers we do presumably all accept the power of astrological cycles in reflecting human affairs? If we cant agree on that this forum has no real purpose.

Moreover, you dont need to adopt Brady's outlook to benefit from her techniques. Brady has made quite a lot of successful mundane predictions so I think she is really on to something with this visual sky approach.

Mark

I actually think free will is restricted even on the individual level. I think we have a certain degree of free will, but similarly we also have a certain amount of things which are 'fated' for us - or are our destiny perhaps.

I don't necessarily see them as mutually exclusive, unless we think that to have free will it must be a totally unimpeded free will and nothing would seem to suggest (to me at least) that that's the case.

Paul wrote:

I actually think free will is restricted even on the individual level. I think we have a certain degree of free will, but similarly we also have a certain amount of things which are 'fated' for us - or are our destiny perhaps.

I don't necessarily see them as mutually exclusive, unless we think that to have free will it must be a totally unimpeded free will and nothing would seem to suggest (to me at least) that that's the case.

I basically agree with all that. I possibly overemphasized the collective as especially predetermined vs the individual. I suppose what I meant is that one person can seek to change their life. I think we individually struggle with both our habitual tendencies and wider social or environmental factors outside our control. We can seek to change our habits and make the best of opportunities that present themselves. However, our environment and available choices are often restricted by factors outside our control. Of course if our character is indicated by horoscopy too we have the dilemma or somehow overcoming a limiting outlook too.

However, to change society in a fundamental way requires a significant number of people to act together or a small number of people to become extremely influential. Hence some individuals can have a disproportionate effect on the collective. This can be for good or ill. The Nazis being a classic example of the latter.

Even then we all have to work within the confines of our particular society. Like individuals with ingrained habits I think societies often have strong forces pulling in the direction of social inertia or status quo.

Ultimately, its difficult not to get into people's core religious and philosophical assumptions with such questions.

Mark

Good morning,

Our Moderator has given a short, succinct description of the captioned system, based on ancient Babylonian pre-horoscopic astrology with horizon coordinates, about the same way i have applied it. Used in advance to two German state elections and the Greek national elections, it has worked well for me to date but my sample is still much too small for any conclusions.

The system is convenient, understandable (there are, however, some shifts from Hellenistic astrology including Constellation - not sign! - symbols), has a reasonably limited symbol set (soothing for my limited cerebral resources) and encourages clear, unequivocal predictions.

Best regards,

lihin

Lithin wrote,

Our Moderator has given a short, succinct description of the captioned system, based on ancient Babylonian pre-horoscopic astrology with horizon coordinates, about the same way i have applied it. Used in advance to two German state elections and the Greek national elections, it has worked well for me to date but my sample is still much too small for any conclusions.

I would be very interested in seeing some of your work on those charts. Maybe we might open a thread specifically looking at The Visual Sky in Mundane astrology? I already have Brady's Starlight software and do use it for fixed stars.

Lithin wrote:

The system is convenient, understandable (there are, however, some shifts from Hellenistic astrology including Constellation - not sign! - symbols), has a reasonably limited symbol set (soothing for my limited cerebral resources) and encourages clear, unequivocal predictions.

Well that is what we all want isn't it? So if it really works as well as you describe there will be a long queque of astrologers looking to try this out. Like many I poured over lots of charts for the US election. However, one indicator is often cancelled out by another. In my opinion horoscopic techniques like ingress charts do not consistently produce a clear cut indication of how an election might proceed. I am frankly quite demoralised with their effectiveness in elections. In fairness though they were never developed to gauge the subtle intricacies of our modern democratic electoral systems.

Despite the astrological complexity of various horoscopic techniques all we usually want to know is will the incumbent party hold on or not? I plan to devote a lot more time to Brady's visual approach in my future studies.

Mark

Mark wrote:Lithin wrote,

Our Moderator has given a short, succinct description of the captioned system, based on ancient Babylonian pre-horoscopic astrology with horizon coordinates, about the same way i have applied it. Used in advance to two German state elections and the Greek national elections, it has worked well for me to date but my sample is still much too small for any conclusions.

I would be very interested in seeing some of your work on those charts. Maybe we might open a thread specifically looking at The Visual Sky in Mundane astrology? I already have Brady's Starlight software and do use it for fixed stars.

Mark, lihin, please, don't forget to open this new thread!

Johannes