HOROSCOPE FOR THE NEW AGE

Predicting Presidential Elections


by E. Alan Meece

From HOROSCOPE FOR THE NEW AGE
May 2016 (updated Dec. 2016)

(See part 2 of this article/chapter here)


The List: Scoring the candidates' horoscopes
Who Scored What
The New Moon Before the Election
The Saturn Return
Saturn in the Houses
Connections to the USA Horoscope
The Spirit of the Times: Uranus, Neptune and Pluto

Can presidential elections be predicted? Are there astrological methods that work, and which any reader can use to become a great presidential election prophet?

The President of the United States has much to do with what happens in America, and the world. Our system of government is set up to make it so. Presidential elections are a field where the unexpected can happen. Crystal balls can get cracked when it comes to predicting who will win.

For a while, my research into this question was rather unsystematic. I knew horoscopes for some of the presidents, and I studied the observations that Grant Lewi and others had made about them. Lewi's cycles of Saturn in relation to horoscopes seemed to work, based on my cursory observations. Certain aspects (certain conjunctions, square/90 degree angles, etc.) between some planets seemed to appear more often in the charts of presidents than others, and Lewi had mentioned some of those. And I thought that liberals or Democrats would more likely get elected in times that were progressive, which were indicated when Uranus was more prominent, and when the outer planets were in liberal signs like Aquarius, while conservatives or Republicans might win when Saturn and conservative signs like Capricorn were more prominent.

That led me to predict that Al Gore would win the election in the year 2000, and I said so in my first book, published in 1997. That didn't quite work out; George W. Bush became president instead. On the other hand, when I tell people I predicted Al Gore would win, but was wrong, most people say, "But Eric, Al Gore DID win the election. You were right!" Election fraud and the Supreme Court just didn't allow him to take office, they say. Nevertheless, my assumption that the liberal candidate would become the president because 2 outer planets were in the "liberal" sign Aquarius at the time, didn't pan out.

Back to the drawing board, I thought.

The Methods

So in November 2003 I got more thorough in my research. I looked at hundreds of candidates and charts to see if any patterns could be found in them. I tabulated the aspects (certain angles between planets) in the charts of all the winning and losing candidates from the time of Andrew Jackson to the time of Bush v Gore. I also looked at the various other methods I had thought about, and tabulated statistics for those too. From the patterns I saw, I was able to predict that Howard Dean would likely not be nominated in 2004, and that John Kerry was the best bet for the Democrats. I wrote an unpublished article with these findings. A month later Dean's candidacy imploded, and Kerry went on to win the nomination soon afterward. But although both Bush and Kerry had strong charts, or so I thought, the horary indicator I used (the horary method described in part 2 ) predicted that Bush would be re-elected in November 2004. And so it was.

When it was getting time for the 2012 election, I made a new list. I further revised it in 2016. I tallied up which aspects were in the charts of winning and losing candidates from the 1790s to 2012. I also observed which aspects were not in the charts of winning candidates, and which were not in the charts of losing candidates. If a candidate both won and lost election(s), their aspects would be counted accordingly as well. I tightened up the requirements and came up with a list of favorable and unfavorable aspects for getting elected. Also, some of these aspects were even more favorable or unfavorable than others. Especially favorable, I decided, were the aspects most common in presidents who never lost an election. A candidate's horoscope score became the ratio between favorable and unfavorable aspects. The candidate with the highest favorable score is the most likely to win the general election. A candidate with a negative score (more unfavorable than favorable aspects) is very likely to lose it.

For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt's horoscope score was 21-4: 21 points for favorable aspects and 4 points for unfavorable. In 1936 FDR defeated Alf Landon, who had a score of 10-16, by a landslide. He went on to beat Wendell Wilkie (8-9) in 1940, and Thomas Dewey (8-6) in 1944. In this example, Landon had what I call a "negative horoscope score" (more unfavorable than favorable aspects). From 1908 onward, no candidate with a negative score has been elected president. In fact, since 1932 every president elected but two has had a double-digit score of favorable aspects, compared to a single-digit score of unfavorable ones.

I was also aware that horary astrology is often used to predict the winner of contests such as sporting events, or to answer questions we put to the universe. Most horary charts look at the rising sign at the time of the event to make predictions about it. Since New Moon charts are used to predict the events of the upcoming month, I used the chart for the time of the New Moon before the election, cast for Washington DC, and applied the horary method to it. I theorized that the rising sign represents the candidate from the party out of power, or the challenger. The opposite descending sign represents the candidate from the party in power, or the champ. The winner is decided by which ruling planet is higher in the sky, the rising sign (or ascendant) ruler, or the setting sign (or descendant) ruler, compared to the horizon.

All signs are ruled by one of the planets. Mars rules Aries, Venus rules Taurus, and so on. But I used Mars as ruler of Scorpio, not Pluto. I used Uranus as ruler of Aquarius, and Neptune as ruler of Pisces. So, for example, if Aries is rising and Libra is setting at the time of the New Moon, then if Mars (ruler of Aries) is higher in the sky than Venus (ruler of Libra), the challenger wins. If Venus is higher, the champ wins.

Two methods based on Grant Lewi's work, from his book Astrology for the Millions, are useful. The first one is very powerful: the Saturn Return. If a candidate is thinking about running for office when (s)he is between the ages of 55 and 59, (s)he had better think again! Saturn is returning to its horoscope position now, or will be returning to it during the term in office (s)he is seeking. According to Grant Lewi, people who seek a high status position during this time of life are pushing their luck, and they should dial down their ambition.

I wouldn't put it that way now. It is no longer the case that people past the age of 55 are too old to be ambitious. But it still represents a time to hold back and look at what you want to do with the rest of your life, and maybe shift course. Grant Lewi writes that "the few who have been in the White House through this transit or just prior to it have earnestly wished they weren't; and happy have been they who got out from under, even in defeat!" Lewi wrote these words in the 1940s, and they could have been said by Lyndon Johnson after announcing he would not seek re-election-- right during his Saturn Return in March 1968! (Lewi, Astrology for the Millions, page 43; see also p.220-221)

The second method also involves Saturn, the planet of ambition and destiny, and concerns which house the ringed planet is passing through in the candidate's chart at the time of the election. More on this and a few other indicators a bit later in Part 2.

The List

Let's take a look at the list of planetary aspects I have developed that predicts which candidates are most-likely to win. If you are not interested in these technical details, feel free to skip to the next section Who Scored What.

First, let's define aspects again. These are the angles formed between the planets. They are like phases of the Moon, based on the lunar cycle between the Sun and Moon. A new moon is a conjunction between them, and a full moon is an opposition. The same applies to any two planets. Aspects are formed as they make their mutual cycles in relation to each other. The first and last quarter phases, when half the Moon is visible, are squares (90 degree angles), and a trine happens when they are 120 degrees apart, or 1/3 of the circle. There's a sextile when they are 60 degrees apart, or 1/6. Each pair of planets go through these same phases, forming these aspects. These are called the major aspects, and they are the most important ones. Other minor aspects are also scored as mentioned below.

The candidates who have done the best have the qualities that Americans like to vote for, or those who can wage good campaigns. These are usually indicated by the aspects in their birth charts. The optimism, confidence and generous spirit of Jupiter, the charismatic, eloquent, liberating energy of Uranus, the magnetism and radiance of the Sun, all appeal to Americans; while the sulky anger and arrogance of Mars might not. Some of the aspects to Mars indicate recklessness and instability, which don't appeal. But just the right aspects to Mars or Saturn can show courage, energy and discipline which Americans admire. And no profit can be had in this approach by omitting Pluto! This list of aspects is very largely based on which ones actually appeared in the charts of winning and losing candidates, and which ones did not. Some of these research findings might be surprising to a few astrologers. For example, some "inharmonious" squares and oppositions are better for competing and winning a presidential election than the "harmonious" or "easy going" sextiles and trines. But since past is usually prologue, but not always, astrological tradition and past knowledge by other experts may also affect some of these scores. Revisions have been made for 2016 and may be made for future elections.

Anyone is invited to use this method to predict which candidates are likely to be elected president in the future, just by looking up a candidate's horoscope. This is a good site for many charts, and adding up the favorable and unfavorable points for any candidate you choose to look at. Sounds easy, doesn't it? Well, let's see!

Favorable aspects for getting elected president of the USA: (latest revision: Dec. 2016)

Sun conjunct or semi-square Venus, 1 point (attractiveness and artistry)
Sun trine or sextile Mars, 1 point (energy, audacity)
Sun opposite, square or conjunct Jupiter, 1 point (optimism, good fortune, confidence)
Sun trine or sextile Uranus, 1 point (charismatic leadership)
Sun opposite, square or conjunct Neptune, 1 point (vision, compassion in action, connection to the people)
Moon trine or sextile Mercury, 2 points (smart and comes across well through public media)
Moon conjunct Mars, 1 point (Lewi noticed this aspect; mobilizes people into action, dynamic)
Moon opposite or square Jupiter, 2 points (connects with and uplifts the people)
Moon trine, sextile or conjunct Jupiter, 1 point (generous, and appeals to the feelings of the people)
Moon trine or sextile Uranus, 1 point (charismatic leadership, with feeling)
Moon opposite or square Pluto, 2 points (directs the power of the people, transformative, and may be hypnotic)
Mercury sextile Venus, 1 point (the candidate with the silver tongue)
Mercury trine or sextile Mars, 1 point (sharp mind and fast tongue)
Mercury trine, sextile or conjunct Jupiter, 1 point (communication skill)
Mercury in any aspect to Uranus, 1 point (charismatic eloquence)
Mercury opposite or square Neptune, 1 point (speaks to peoples' feelings, expert schemer)
Mercury opposite, square or conjunct Pluto, 2 points (convincing, thoughtful, perhaps revolutionary ideas)
Venus trine or sextile Jupiter, 1 point (good fortune and cheer; financial success)
Venus trine, sextile or conjunct Saturn, 1 point (steadiness, integrity, sacrifice; like George Washington)
Venus opposite or square Neptune, 1 point (the aspect of "divine discontent;" visionary empathy in action, but scandal is possible)
Venus trine or sextile Pluto, 2 points (ability to connect with people and power)
Mars trine or sextile Saturn, 2 points (disciplined energy and courage)
Jupiter trine or sextile Uranus, 2 points (the popular hero)
Jupiter trine, opposite or square Neptune, 2 points (expansive or compassionate; eloquent ideals)
Saturn trine or sextile Uranus, 1 point (strategic skills, practical ideals)
Saturn trine, sextile or conjunct Neptune, 1 point (visionary realism)

For a strong aspect among any of these above: add 1 point each. This is important to remember. Stronger aspects are closer to being exact, and are more significant. Strong conjunctions, oppositions, trines or squares are those within exactly 6 degrees or less. Strong sextiles are those within exactly 3 degrees. To determine this requirement, you must look at the number of degrees and minutes indicated for the positions of the planets in the charts of the candidates, or refer to aspect tables where these are listed.

If a candidate or president's birth time is not known, 12 Noon is used. But in that case we can't be certain which lunar aspects (s)he has, because the Moon moves too fast. So in those cases I don't count minor aspects (see below) to the Moon. For other lunar aspects that score 2 points, I only give one point if it's not a strong aspect (a strong aspect is 6 degrees apart or less; 3 for sextiles). If this becomes too much trouble, though, I would just score the major lunar aspects as indicated above.

Minimum allowable orbs for aspects:
Conjunctions, oppositions, trines and squares must be within 10 degrees to count for the horoscope score. Sextiles must be within 6 degrees.

Minor aspects:
Semi-squares are 45 degree angles, and sesqui-squares are 135 degrees. Score one point only, for each aspect among any of the same 2 planets mentioned above in a square (for example, Sun semi-square Neptune, score 1 point). The planets must be exactly 2 degrees apart or less. This applies also to the Sun-Venus semi-square already mentioned above.

A quincunx is an aspect of 150 degrees. It's worth 1 point. Score the same as any opposition in the above list, but it must be within exactly one degree; no more. Semi-sextiles are 30 degrees and are also worth 1 point. Score the same as any sextile in the above list, but only if it is within 1 degree. For example, Sun quincunx Neptune scores 1 point. Venus semi-sextile Jupiter scores 1 point.

Add up all the scores to obtain the first number in the candidate's horoscope score, the favorable number.

Unfavorable aspects for getting elected president of the USA:

Sun conjunct Mercury, 1 point (nervous instability)
Sun conjunct Mars, 2 points (restless energy, overworks, may be too combative)
Sun trine, sextile or conjunct Pluto, 2 points (may push too hard, or let energy run amok)
Moon opposite or square Mercury, 2 points (careless or radical speech)
Moon opposite or square Venus, 1 point (may have glamour, but lacks discipline)
Moon opposite or square Mars, 1 point (may be too angry, impulsive or moody)
Moon conjunct Saturn, 1 point (too cautious or negative)
Moon opposite or square Uranus, 1 point (unstable popularity, unconventional)
Moon opposite, square or conjunct Neptune, 2 points (malaise: muddled or lacks control of emotions)
Mercury conjunct Venus, 1 point (seems friendly enough, but too evasive)
Mercury trine or sextile Saturn, 1 point (thinking too rigid, or gets stuck in ruts)
Mercury trine or sextile Pluto, 1 point (may get carried away with radical ideas or rough speech)
Venus trine or sextile Mars, 1 point (may be distracted by passions and appetites)
Venus opposite or square Jupiter, 2 points (big ego; too showy, indulgent or unstable)
Venus opposite or square Saturn, 1 point (too cold, distant or conservative)
Venus trine, sextile or conjunct Uranus, 1 point (may be attractive, but unsteady)
Mars opposite or square Jupiter, 3 points (reckless prodigality; unfocused)
Mars opposite or square Saturn, 2 points (unstable, or cruel)
Mars conjunct Uranus, 1 point (powerful, reckless, willful)
Mars trine or sextile Neptune, 2 points (uncontrolled feelings, complacent, or too much of a crusader)
Mars trine, sextile or conjunct Pluto, 1 point (too passionate or unsteady)
Jupiter trine or sextile Saturn, 2 points (supposed to be good planner, but evidently way too cautious)
Jupiter opposite or square Pluto, 2 points (much like Mars-Jupiter; too careless)
Saturn opposite or square Neptune, 2 points (paranoia, pessimism)
Saturn trine, sextile, opposite or square Pluto, 2 points (ruthless domineering repels the people)

For a strong aspect among any of these above: add 1 point each. This is important to remember. Stronger aspects are closer to being exact, and are more significant. Strong conjunctions, oppositions, trines or squares are those within exactly 6 degrees or less. Strong sextiles are those within exactly 3 degrees.

Minimum allowable orbs (closeness) for aspects: Conjunctions, oppositions, trines and squares must be within exactly 10 degrees to count for the horoscope score. Sextiles must be within exactly 6 degrees.

Minor aspects:

Semi-squares are 45 degree angles, and sesqui-squares are 135 degrees. Score one point only, just like for any square in the above list (for example, Mars semi-square to Jupiter or Saturn scores 1 point). The planets must be exactly 2 degrees apart or less. A quincunx is an aspect of 150 degrees. It's worth 1 point. Score the same as any opposition in the above list, but it must be within exactly one degree; no more. Semi-sextiles are 30 degrees, and are also worth 1 point. Score the same as any sextile in the above list, but only if it is within 1 degree. For example, Mars quincunx Jupiter scores 1 point. Mars semi-sextile Neptune scores 1 point.

Add up all the scores; this is the second number in a candidate's horoscope score, the negative score.

For example, in President Obama's horoscope below, you can see that Mars is at 22 degrees, 35 minutes Virgo and Saturn is at 25 degrees, 20 minutes Capricorn. That is a trine within 6 degrees between those two planets; worth 3 positive points from my list (representing disciplined energy). He has a close Moon-Jupiter trine (connects with people), worth 2 points. He also has a close Sun-Neptune square (vision, compassion), worth 2 points. Obama's Moon in Gemini is square to Uranus in Leo, within 10 degrees, but not 6. So this gives him 1 negative point (representing unstable popularity). He also has a minor aspect from the list, a quincunx between Venus and Jupiter (showy), worth 1 negative point. Note that he just misses having an unfavorable conjunction between the Sun and Mercury.

The easiest way to score a candidate is to use an aspect chart, in which you can readily see each aspect and how far apart it is. Websites such as astro.com and many astrology programs have this feature. Be sure you have memorized the symbols for the planets and the aspects.

For future prophets only. Points given to aspects can change a bit depending on future elections. Notes on some borderline aspects that may shift on this list in the future:

Favorable aspects:
Moon trine/sextile Uranus could shift back to +2 points if a couple of candidates with it are elected, and none with it lose.
Mercury trine/sextile Mars could lose its point if candidates with it lose.
Mercury trine/sextile Neptune could replace or join Mercury trine/sextile Jupiter for a point. This would improve the scores of Wilson and LBJ, and subtract from Goldwater's, but could put Herbert Hoover back among candidates who won with a negative score. Traditionally, Jupiter is more fortunate than Neptune.
Sun trine/sextile Mars could get back up to 2 points if more candidates with it win and none lose.
Jupiter opposite or square Neptune could lose its extra point, depending on how candidates with it do.
Mars opposite/square Pluto is traditionally unfavorable, but could get a point if future candidates with it win.
Sun opposite/square Moon, a generic kind of aspect, has boosted several presidents lately; it could get a point if this continues. Right now, it seems to symbolize our divided country.

Unfavorable aspects:
Moon opposite/square Mars could lose its new negative point if future candidate(s) with it win and none lose.
Sun opposite square Saturn could get back its previous negative point if future candidate(s) with it lose and none win. Presidents with it were confined to the crisis period of the early 20th century, between and including TR and FDR; plus Lincoln during the Civil War.
Venus trine/sextile Uranus could lose its negative point if future candidate(s) with it win.
Venus trine/sextile Neptune could get a negative point if future candidate(s) with it lose and none win.
Saturn trine/sextile Pluto could lose a negative point if future candidates with it win.
Mercury trine/sextile Saturn could gain more negative points if its current losing trend continues.
The same applies to Mercury trine/sextile Pluto.

Other aspects could shift further in the future, depending on what happens. Prophets might consider which candidates have these aspects above when considering their score; it could shift after an election depending on how they do.

Who Scored What?

If you look at the scores for candidates who have run for president, you can see there's a consistent pattern. A better margin of favorable over unfavorable scores compared to your opponent is a great advantage in a presidential election. The candidate with the higher percentage margin (positive score divided by negative score) usually wins. When the margins are close to each other, a close election is likely.

Also, sometimes the horoscope score may conflict with the other methods, as we will see. A prophet needs to balance these factors to make a prediction.

George Washington, the father of the country, set the pattern for a winning score with 18-5. James K. Polk had one of the best scores at 22-2. The first unknown "dark horse" candidate, he faced enormous odds against him to win and succeed as president. U.S. Grant followed in Washington's footsteps as a victorious general into the White House with a formidable 17-3 score. History repeated itself when another victorious general, Dwight Eisenhower, won with a good 17-8 score.

On the other hand, most candidates who have too little recognition, or who are too far out of the mainstream of opinion, are likely still at a disadvantage. A high score by itself is not enough to get you elected president. You still have to earn your way by getting yourself recognized and noticed, and not be seen as too "extreme" or out of step with the party you run in. Third party and independent candidates are also at a disadvantage. A higher score may also indicate a greater chance of being nominated; but not necessarily. Some candidates with very bad scores have been nominated, only to lose the general election. Candidates who overcame great odds to win often had the highest scores.

A great score does not indicate a good president either; just a candidate who is good at getting elected. A bad score also does not indicate that someone can't get elected to other kinds of offices. Many candidates with low scores for the presidential election are elected governor or senator, for example. But someone with a negative score is unlikely to be elected president of the USA. No-one has done so since 1904.

In general, a good prophet has to keep in mind other factors besides the raw scores. If, for instance, you know that some of a candidate's aspects barely meet the minimum allowable orb, or others are just beyond it, you might want to consider that when making a prediction. The score gives a good indication of the candidate's chances, but a good astrologer will look at everything in the chart to understand a person more fully, and what interests, abilities and problems (s)he has.

Notes for numbers wonks: In my database of aspects and candidates, I generally only included candidates I thought were significant; not those few (like for example Al Sharpton) who did very poorly. Except for a few before 1968, I only included significant candidates who actually ran in primary and/or general elections. Those who ran twice or more are counted only once for losing a nomination. I assume that these candidates did well enough to try again. For the same reason, I also did not count lost nominations by those who became nominees or presidents later. The aspects of those who never served are counted once for that, and for those who were never nominated are counted again for that. In my special new "win-loss" tally, one of my methods for calculating aspects scores, I observed these rules, but I only counted FDR's horoscope aspects for 3 wins. Eventually I will post all my research.

In the list below, some scores are marked J, U, *, **, SN.

J = Jupiter rising, on the eastern horizon or in the first house, greatly helps a candidate's chances. 8 major party candidates elected president had Jupiter rising (including Polk, Taylor, Lincoln, Grant, LBJ and Bill Clinton), and only 2 were never elected: Walter Mondale (12-12) and Hillary Clinton (9-11). Mondale also faced a Saturn Return. Bill Taft and Teddy Roosevelt both won and lost once (but they lost only when they ran both against each other-- and Woodrow Wilson). 3 others were from 3rd parties (unlikely to win) and 2 of those candidates had terrible losing scores otherwise (also unlikely to win). Americans like to vote for a bouyant, optimistic, generous personality, which Jupiter represents. Jupiter rising may be worth at least 6 points; maybe 10 (no more than 3 for an independent/third party candidate). But I don't include this in the official raw score, since I don't know the birth times of many of the candidates, especially earlier ones. Lyndon Johnson's overwhelming personality was "larger than life;" his 5 rising planets (Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Moon, Mercury) represent perfectly the famous "Johnson treatment" which he used to get what he wanted from people.

These 5 rising planets probably helped him beat Barry Goldwater in 1964, who had a somewhat higher score. Tentatively you could give LBJ at least 10 extra points for these 5 rising planets; more than enough to beat Goldwater's score. Bill Clinton, who had 4 planets rising (Jupiter, Mars, Neptune and Venus) and is called a "gifted politician," is another famous example. These two guys had the most planets rising of any major candidates in history. Jupiter rising also no doubt helped Teddy Roosevelt beat his lesser-known but higher-scoring opponent in 1904. But you'd have to give Walter Mondale about 30 extra points just for his Jupiter rising to make up for his much-poorer score than Ronald Reagan's, and Hillary Clinton would have needed at least 15 more points from Jupiter rising to beat Donald Trump's score.

U = The visionary charisma of Uranus rising may have helped presidents Monroe, W H Harrison and Taft get elected over their opponents. Uranus rising helped FDR get elected to 4 terms, but didn't help the great orator William Jennings Bryan get elected; he lost 3 times. Legend has it that the "champions of democracy" Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson had Uranus rising too, but this seems to be mere speculation.

* another major factor: from the time of Andrew Jackson onward, candidates who run with Saturn returning to its position in their horoscope from the election year until the next term begins 4 years later, are likely to lose. Many others with a Saturn Return happening or coming up choose not to run. Candidates who had a Saturn return are indicated by an asterisk in the first list below.

Sometimes, if Saturn returns to their natal position in the 4th year of the term they seek, candidates can win, but the term is a disaster. If Saturn returns only during the 3 years after the election, they lose it. More details and statistics on the Saturn Return pattern later.

**As a rule, if both candidates are due for a return, the one whose return is earliest will lose the election. Woodrow Wilson was the one and only exception.

SN-- William Jennings Bryan lost 3 general elections. This may be explained by Saturn at the Nadir (SN) in his own horoscope. Ambitious Saturn is opposite to its natural position there. I know; I have this position, and I've not had an easy time with executive appointments. It turns out that only one elected president had Saturn at the Nadir or in the 4th house (the Nadir of Fortune) in his birth chart: William Howard Taft. He had a good 12-8 score, enough to easily beat Bryan (5-4).

But Taft hated the office, and was not re-elected. So far, I've counted 7 times when a nominee with Saturn at the Nadir/4th house lost the general election (including Thomas Dewey who lost twice); plus 5 other candidates who weren't nominated. Saturn was at the Nadir or in the 4th house in the charts of 9 candidates who were never elected president, out of 81 major party candidates whose birthtimes are known (11%); and in the chart of only one such candidate who was elected (Taft, but he lost re-election) (1.6%). The chances of anyone being born with Saturn in this position are 1 out of 12 (8.3%).

First, I'll list the scores of the winners and losers of each presidential election-- winner first. It's true that, for elections up through 2016, these scores were mostly based on the same aspects that were in the horoscopes of all the candidates. But the results show how consistently the system has worked over time. From 1908 onward, no candidate with a negative score has won the general election. The candidate(s) with the lower score lost 24 out of 26 times since then. In 1964 Lyndon Johnson had a lower raw score than Barry Goldwater (not counting LBJ's Jupiter rising), but Goldwater faced his Saturn Return before LBJ did. In the close election of 1960, the loser (Nixon) had a slightly higher score than the winner (JFK).

Elections before 1932:

1789 and 1792: George Washington 18-5, unopposed
1796: John Adams 6-7 (Mars rising), Thomas Jefferson 5-0
1800: Thomas Jefferson 5-0, John Adams 6-7, Aaron Burr 6-9
1804: Thomas Jefferson 5-0, Charles Pinckney 9-15
1808: James Madison 12-7, Charles Pinckney 9-15
1812: James Madison 12-7, DeWitt Clinton, 9-13
1816: James Monroe 7-5 U, Rufus King 7-12
1820: James Monroe 7-5 U, John Quincy Adams 8-3
1824: J Q Adams 8-3*, Andrew Jackson 9-3**, Henry Clay 6-13 (a 4th candidate, William Crawford (9-1) had a stroke and could not compete)
1828: Andrew Jackson 9-3, J Q Adams 8-3
1832: Andrew Jackson 9-3, Henry Clay 6-13*
1836: Martin Van Buren 9-4, William Henry Harrison 11-10 U
1840: W H Harrison 11-10 U, Martin Van Buren 9-4*
1844: James K Polk 22-2 J, Henry Clay 6-13
1848: Zachary Taylor 11-4 J, Lewis Cass 6-15, Martin Van Buren 9-4
1852: Franklin Pierce 15-14, Winfield Scott 8-23 (Mars rising)
1856: James Buchanan 13-6, John C. Fremont 7-13 SN, Millard Fillmore 11-8*
1860: Abraham Lincoln 16-3 J, Stephen A Douglas 12-21, John Breckinridge 0-23 J, John Bell 3-15
1864: Abraham Lincoln 16-3 J*, George McClellan 10-16
1868: Ulysses S. Grant 17-3 J, Horatio Seymour 6-12*
1872: Ulysses S. Grant 17-3 J, Horace Greeley 4-11
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes 9-3, Samuel J. Tilden 3-14
1880: James A Garfield 8-9, Winfield Hancock 9-8*
1884: Grover Cleveland 10-9, James G. Blaine 7-9*
1888: Benjamin Harrison 14-8*, Grover Cleveland 10-9
1892: Grover Cleveland 10-9*, Benjamin Harrison 14-8**, James B Weaver, 15-6
1896: William McKinley 13-3 (Mars rising), William Jennings Bryan 5-4 U, SN
1900: William McKinley 13-3*, William Jennings Bryan 5-4 U, SN
1904: Theodore Roosevelt 12-15 J, Alton B Parker 15-10
1908: William H. Taft 12-8 J/U, SN, William Jennings Bryan 5-4 U, SN
1912: Woodrow Wilson 10-6**, Theodore Roosevelt 12-15 J, William H. Taft 12-8 J/U, SN*
1916: Woodrow Wilson 10-6**, Charles Evans Hughes 7-11*
1920: Warren G Harding 13-10*, James Cox 8-8
1924: Calvin Coolidge 10-9, John W. Davis 8-16, Robert LaFollette 6-14
1928: Herbert Hoover 11-11, Al Smith 4-16*

Elections from 1932 to 2016:
1932: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U, Herbert Hoover 11-11*
1936: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U*, Alf Landon 10-16
1940: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U*, Wendell Wilkie 8-9
1944: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U, Thomas Dewey 8-6 SN
1948: Harry Truman 14-0, Thomas Dewey 8-6 SN
1952: Dwight Eisenhower 17-8, Adlai Stevenson 5-21
1956: Dwight Eisenhower 17-8, Adlai Stevenson 5-21*
1960: John F Kennedy 13-6, Richard Nixon 18-7
1964: Lyndon Johnson 8-6 J*, Barry Goldwater 20-11** (he had Mars in Scorpio rising, with inharmonious aspects: the perfect symbol of his stubborn "extremism")
1968: Richard Nixon 18-7*, Hubert Humphrey 9-5**, George Wallace 2-7 J (+ Mars rising)
1972: Richard Nixon 18-7*, George McGovern 9-10
1976: Jimmy Carter 12-4, Gerald Ford 12-8
1980: Ronald Reagan 21-6, Jimmy Carter 12-4*, John Anderson 14-8 J*
1984: Ronald Reagan 21-6, Walter Mondale 12-12 J/U*
1988: George H W Bush 14-6, Michael Dukakis 2-10*
1992: Bill Clinton 21-3 J, George H W Bush 14-6, Ross Perot 7-10 (his Jupiter rising is evident, but it was 10 degrees above his ascendant, so I didn't count it officially)
1996: Bill Clinton 21-3 J, Bob Dole 12-19, Ross Perot 7-10
2000: George W Bush 17-2*, Al Gore 10-9 (Mars rising)
2004: George W Bush 17-2*, John Kerry 8-12 (his score was much weaker in the revised system)
2008: Barack Obama 19-2, John McCain 15-13
2012: Barack Obama 19-2, Mitt Romney 4-10 U, SN
2016: Donald Trump 9-4 (Mars rising), Hillary Rodham Clinton 9-11 J

Best scores of any nominee: Harry Truman, 1948 (14-0), James K Polk, 1844 (22-2 J). Worst scores: John Breckinridge, 1860 (0-23 J), John Bell, 1860 (3-15), Michael Dukakis, 1988 (2-10). Lowest scores by winning candidates: Theodore Roosevelt ("TR"), 1904 (12-15), John Adams, 1796 (6-7), and James A Garfield, 1880 (8-9). Highest scores by losing candidates: Jimmy Carter (12-4), who defeated Gerald Ford (12-8) in 1976, was defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980 (21-6). Thomas Jefferson, who had a perfect 5-0 score, lost in 1796 to John Adams-- although Jefferson also had the lowest total points of any candidate. He came back to beat Adams in 1800 and won again in 1804.

In all 58 elections, only 3 winners had a negative horoscope score (John Adams, TR, Garfield; 5%). 54 had a positive score (93%), with one tie (Hoover). By contrast, 38 losers had a negative score (55% of 69). 28 losers had a positive score (41.4%), with 3 tie scores, but 15 of those with positive scores were also president of the USA. Candidates who ran more than once are tallied for each time they ran. I include all general election candidates who got at least 5% of the vote.

Here's how the pattern stacks up. Since 1932, out of 22 winners of presidential elections, only 2 had lower scores on this system than the loser: JFK (1960) and LBJ (1964) (9.5%). In all 58 presidential elections in US history through 2016, only 9 winners had lower scores than their losing opponents (15.5%). 49 winners had higher scores (84.5%), and that's 20 since 1932 (90.5%).

Apparently, winning scores have gotten higher in elections for the modern presidency as we know it today. Now that the USA is the leader of the "free world," with the leading economy that needs careful attention, only candidates who have the best combination of aspects are judged worthy of the job by the American people. And only certain candidates have the skill to master this age of mass media, glamorous entertainment and big money politics. But few if any of the prospective candidates known as of this writing measure up to the standard set by recent winners. Since 1932, all winners have had at least a 2-1 proportion in their winning score, except LBJ who had Jupiter and 4 other planets rising.

Another interesting fact related to this is that, from 1884 up to 2016, only one candidate with a positive number below 10 in their score had been elected (LBJ). The second is Donald Trump in 2016, who has a 9-4 score, which beat Hillary Clinton's 9-11 (+J). They were considered the two most unpopular major candidates in modern history.

Besides these aspects, the Saturn Return pattern (which we'll discuss in more detail in part 2) is also very powerful. There were a few candidates with higher scores who lost to their opponents because of a Saturn Return. For example, Barry Goldwater, 20-11, lost to Lyndon Johnson, 8-6+J, in 1964. They both had a Saturn Return due during the upcoming term, but Goldwater's came first, and that made the difference. Of 12 candidates whose Saturn was returning to its place in their horoscope during only the first 3 years after the election, 11 of them lost. 1 of them won-- only to be immediately assassinated. That was McKinley in 1900, who also had the highest score among these 12 candidates (13-3; also higher than opponent W.J. Bryan's score of 5-4).

Richard Nixon (18-7) also lost to a candidate with a lower score (JFK, 13-6) in 1960. The relatively close scores between JFK and Nixon reflected one of the closest elections in history. The closest ever by popular vote, however, was when Garfield (8-9) beat Hancock (9-8) in 1880. In that case, Hancock also had a Saturn Return coming soon. Both JFK and Garfield were assassinated during these terms to which they were barely elected, by the way.

For all 58 elections in history through 2016, of the 9 losers who had higher scores than the winners, only 4 of them did not have a Saturn Return coming to block them. That's only 4 losing candidates who had higher scores than their opponents, without any Saturn Return, out of 66 losing candidates, or 6%. These were Thomas Jefferson in 1796, John Quincy Adams in 1820, Alton B. Parker in 1904, and Richard Nixon in 1960. Jefferson and Nixon went on to become twice-elected president later, and Adams once. Parker lost to TR, who had Jupiter rising.

TR was an amazing fellow. He may have been the only candidate to transform himself in youth, beat the odds, and beat the swords in his chart into plowshares for himself and the country.

Conclusion: most of the time, the losing candidate had a lower score than the winner, and/or a Saturn Return coming in current election year or the next 4 years.

Next, here's the list of recent and prospective candidates and their scores. Many scores are subject to change if birth time becomes known.

Republican potential or actual candidates 2012-2016 (or later):

Donald Trump, 9-4 (Mars rising)
Newt Gingrich, 9-9 SN
Rick Santorum, 8-15
Rick Perry, 11-8
Michelle Bachman, 11-13
Herman Cain, 11-14
Buddy Roemer, 6-11
Ron Paul, 14-9
Jeb Bush, 10-10
Chris Christie, 14-23*
Mitch Daniels, 18-17
Mike Huckabee, 9-18
John Boehner, 9-13
Ted Cruz, 4-11 U
Paul Ryan, 10-11
Marco Rubio, 11-10
Bobby Jindal, 15-13
Rand Paul, 8-9*
John Thune, 8-9*
Scott Walker, 10-9
Peter King, 9-7
John Kasich, 3-12
Ben Carson, 6-9
Rob Portman, 14-8
Sam Brownback, 8-9
Kelly Ayotte, 13-8
Lindsay Graham, 1-5
Carly Fiorina, 16-7
Jim Gilmore, 10-16
George Pataki, 15-3
Sarah Palin, 5-5
George P. Bush, 4-7
Nikki Haley, 8-15
Bob Corker, 11-21
Mike Pence, 8-7
Ivanka Trump, 16-2 (Donald Jr. 6-16, Eric 5-10)

Highest scores with no Saturn return due: Donald Trump 9-4, Ivanka Trump 16-2, Carly Fiorina 16-7, George Pataki 15-3.

Democratic potential or actual candidates 2012-2016 (or later)
Hillary Clinton, 9-11 J
Martin O'Malley, 11-19*
Joe Biden, 13-8
Elizabeth Warren, 8-7
Bernie Sanders, 14-7
Jim Webb, 11-7
Tim Kaine, 11-11
Michelle Obama, 6-6
Andrew Cuomo, 11-6
Cory Booker, 6-7
Zephyr Teachout, 4-12
Joe Manchin, 6-10
Howard Dean, 6-8 U
Janet Napolitano, 11-5
Tammy Baldwin, 13-6*
Kirsten Gillibrand, 7-12
Brian Schweitzer, 9-5
Deval Patrick, 9-6
Mark Warner, 7-11
Joe Kennedy III, 7-6
Jason Carter, 10-4
Joe & Julian Castro, 8-13
Terry McAuliffe, 11-2
Gavin Newsom, 7-1 U
Antonio Villaraigosa, 15-5
Lincoln Chafee, 15-9
Sherrod Brown, 19-8
Russ Feingold, 12-14
Bill DeBlasio, 12-17*
Tulsi Gabbard, 11-6
Tom Vilsack, 15-6
Al Franken, 9-9
Jack Markell, 14-9
Chuck Schumer, 15-8
Debbie Stabenow, 8-3
Roy Cooper, 10-4
Mark Zuckerberg (party unknown), 12-9
George Clooney, 11-19*
Michael Moore, 16-6 SN
Oprah Winfrey, 10-3
Stephen Colbert, 20-11*
Seth Meyers, 20-3
Chelsea Clinton, 9-5 U

More candidate scores will be added.

Best scores, with no Saturn Return: Bernie Sanders 14-7, Gavin Newsom 7-1, Antonio Villaraigosa, 15-5, Tom Vilsack, 15-6, Oprah Winfrey, 10-3, Roy Cooper, 10-4, Jason Carter 10-4. Sherrod Brown has a high positive number, and a good score: 19-8.

Two other potential Democratic candidates with good scores, who had a Saturn Return for 2016, have no Saturn Return after 2020: Terry McAuliffe 11-2, and Janet Napolitano 11-5. Tammy Baldwin (13-6) will have a Saturn Return for the election of 2020, and Gavin Newsom (7-1) for 2024. If elected California governor in 2018, he would be well-advised to serve for 2 full terms before running for president.

In this new era when celebrities get elected president without any experience, maybe another one can save us! Late-night TV political comic Seth Meyers has indicated no interest in running, but if he did, he'd have a 20-3 score going for him (exact score subject to change, if birth time becomes known). Maybe "it's time for a closer look" at Seth Meyers! Late Night TV host Stephen Colbert (20-11), if he ran in 2020, would have a Saturn Return in his 4th year. Another media personality with a good score is documentary producer Michael Moore, 16-6, although he has Saturn at his Nadir (SN); and Oprah Winfrey has 10-3.

*Saturn return due between 2020 and 2024

Some other Independent/3rd party candidates:

Gary Johnson (Libertarian), 12-9 (ran in 2012, 2016)
Jill Stein (Green), 16-2 (ran in 2012, 2016; needs more qualifications, and major party backing; but an excellent candidate)
Evan McMullin, 6-2 (2016)
Ralph Nader (Green, Independent), 6-9 (ran in 2000, and 3 other times)
Sanders, see Democrats

Potential:

Mike Bloomberg, 8-5
Jesse Ventura, 14-13 U+Mars rising

Some past candidates not nominated:

Robert F Kennedy, 14-14
Ted Kennedy, 8-15
Edmund S Muskie, 9-9
Gary Hart, 9-17 U
Rudy Guiliani, 6-15
John Edwards, 12-11 U
Dennis Kucinich, 7-8
Wesley Clark, 9-15
Eugene McCarthy, 11-5 U
Nelson Rockefeller, 14-13

Of all candidates never nominated by a major party in my database, 30 had a negative score, 13 positive (usually narrowly), and 6 tie scores. Only two had a higher score than the winner of the elections in which they competed: Paul Simon, who was born with Saturn at the Nadir, barely beat George Bush I's score. Carly Fiorina barely tops Donald Trump's score.

Click HERE to continue with Part 2

BACK TO TOP