Predicting Presidential Elections Part 2

by E. Alan Meece


You can go back to Part 1 here

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

The New Moon Before the Election

Another major factor I use is the New Moon prior to the election. It has proved to be a very effective method.

On the other hand, as we have experienced twice in the 21st century so far, in cases where the popular vote conflicts with the electoral college, the New Moon before the election indicates the popular vote.

I cast the chart for the exact time of the New Moon for Washington DC. If the rising sign's ruler is higher in the sky, the challenging party wins. If the setting sign ruler is higher, the party in power wins. Uranus at the Nadir (at the Sun's position at Midnight) also helps the challenger. Note that in 2000 the rulers were almost equally high. Gore's ruler (setting sign ruler, representing the party in power) was slightly higher.

I looked at new moon charts before the election going back to 1848, the first presidential election that was held nationwide on the same day. I am not using charts for earlier elections, which lasted at least 5 weeks, happening in different states on different days. The first two charts did not predict the election correctly (1848 and 1852). They were also incorrect in four other cases in the 19th century. In two of these cases (1876 and 1888), the chart was correct for the popular vote, but the electoral college determined the winner. In fact, in 1876, the election was decided as part of a compromise in which Rutherford B. Hayes was chosen president in exchange for ending Reconstruction. Fraud was also alleged in Florida. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison was elected because he won the electoral college, even though Grover Cleveland won the popular vote. The following year, 1892, the chart indicated an incumbent victory. Maybe something in the planets felt that Cleveland should have been the incumbent, since he had won the popular vote last time, and had been an incumbent previously. But he was running as the challenger, and he won anyway despite the new moon showing the incumbent winning. Again, the new moon was wrong in 1896, perhaps because the pattern had been upset.

In the 20th century however, the method usually worked. From 1900 onward through 2012, the new moon before the election has indicated the winner 24 times out of 28, a record of 86% correct. It was wrong only in 1952, 1968, 1988 and 2000. In 2000, once again the new moon method indicated the popular vote winner, as it had in 1876 and 1888. The ruling planet representing the party in power, and its candidate Al Gore, was just 3 degrees higher in the sky. Gore won the popular vote, as indicated by the New Moon, but lost the electoral college in the closest election in history, losing Florida by just 537 official votes. As in 1876, fraud was alleged, and in the same state as then. But the method worked again anyway in 2004, when the new moon indicated that George W Bush would win because he was the incumbent. In 2008, it indicated that Obama would win, because he represented the challenging party. In 2012, it indicated the incumbent Obama would win.

In 1904 the New Moon indicated that the lower-scoring candidate would win (Theodore Roosevelt). Also, in 1960, when John F. Kennedy was running against Vice President Richard Nixon, who had a slightly better horoscope score, the new moon indicated that the challenger party would win, and it did. In 1964, the incumbent Lyndon Johnson won as the new moon predicted, although the challenger Goldwater had a higher score (but remember Johnson's powerful personality indicated by Jupiter and 4 other planets rising boosted his chances, and Goldwater faced a Saturn Return first).

On the other hand, in 1968 when George Wallace ran as an independent against Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey, Nixon (the challenger) won, even though the new moon indicated that the party in power (the Democrats) would win. Since Wallace had been a Democrat, perhaps the totals for Wallace and Humphrey together were indicated by the New Moon, since the Descendant's ruling planet, representing the party in power, was higher in the sky than the Ascendant's ruler. However, Nixon also had a somewhat stronger horoscope score than Humphrey, who also faced his Saturn Return before Nixon's was due. In 1988, the new moon indicated the challenging party would win. But Vice President George H.W. Bush's horoscope score of 14-6 was much better than his opponent Michael Dukakis' very negative score of 2-10, showing how the folksy Mr. Bush appealed to Americans more than the stodgy intellectual Mr. Dukakis, who also had to face up to a Saturn Return. The higher-scoring candidate also won in 1848 and 1852, despite the New Moon indicator. In 2000 Bush had a better horoscope score than Gore, although both had positive scores. Gore's score was 10-9, the same as Cleveland who also lost in the electoral college in 1888, just as Gore did in 2000. In those 6 cases, the other factors proved decisive over the new moon before election method.

If Uranus is at the Nadir or in the 4th house at the time of the new moon before election, that is a sign that the incumbent party could be toppled. The Nadir is the point below the horizon where the Sun is at Midnight. It signifies an electoral "revolution" by the people against their president. This happened in 1952, when it overpowered the rest of the chart which had predicted that the party in power would win. So Eisenhower, a Republican, defeated Adlai Stevenson and succeeded Democrat Harry Truman as president. In this case also, Eisenhower's positive horoscope score easily overpowered Stevenson's very negative score. The intellectual Mr. Stevenson just didn't appeal as much to the people as the friendly and smiling old general. Another factor is that Ike did not pick a party to run in until it was time to run. A similar situation happened in 1848, when the new moon method also predicted an incumbent victory. Zachary Taylor, hero of the recent war with Mexico, picked the opposing party The Whigs even though he had served under Democrat James K. Polk. So the challenging party won in both cases, although the party in power likely would have won if the war heroes had chosen to run in it.

Uranus at the Nadir also happened in 1932, when FDR kicked out the unpopular Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression, and in 1976 when Democrat Jimmy Carter turned out incumbent Gerald Ford, who had pardoned Nixon after he resigned in disgrace due to scandal. In these two cases the ruling planets of the Ascendant and Descendant also predicted a challenger victory, as normally indicated. Uranus was also at the Nadir in 1928, but in this case it was a only a sign of things to come. The rest of the chart indicated that the party in power would win, as it did. But Hoover had been in office for only 7 months when the Stock Market Crash came down on his stubborn head and ruined his chances for re-election.

So, Uranus at the Nadir worked 3 out of 4 times in the 20th century. The only other case was in 1868, when Republican Ulysses S. Grant succeeded Andrew Johnson, who had been a southern Democrat, but had been elected vice-president with Abraham Lincoln in 1864 on the "national unity" ticket. The Republican "radicals" of the time thus got their man in, toppling the party in power, even though they failed to convict and remove Johnson by one vote in the Senate earlier that year.

A new wrinkle appeared in the election of 2016, however. Uranus was at the Nadir again, if you look at the chart in a different way than I usually do. More on this new "angle" below.

So, what does the new moon before election day indicate for the future, as of this writing? (May 2016; see update below)

The 2016 race is a hard election to predict. Senator Bernie Sanders, a "democratic socialist" who may be a ripe target for Republican free-market advocates, is running for the Democratic Party's nomination against former Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is considered untrustworthy by some voters and is also vulnerable to withering attacks by the opposition. Hillary's score is only barely positive, 12-9, (or so I thought); although she benefits like her husband from a bouyant and confident Jupiter rising, as well as Mercury and Venus rising. But Sanders has a better 14-7 horoscope score. However much outside the usual mainstream he may be, he is waging (as I predicted he would) a very strong campaign. He is appealing to young Americans because of his sincere, authentic desire to help the people, which shines through in his every speech and debate. Huge crowds cheer on his "revolution," which many people see as necessary in a nation dominated by a few rich people, and no longer providing the opportunities it once did. As of now, Hillary Clinton's great advantages in establishment backing, experience and readiness to assume the presidency seem likely to stave off an upset by the Sanders insurgency.

On the Republican side, the candidate with the strongest score is also doing much better than anyone predicted, except perhaps for me. Like most people, at first I didn't take hotel and casino magnate Donald J. Trump too seriously as a candidate. He has never held public office, and was recently a "birther" who thought President Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya. It's clear that he peddles some strange and offensive ideas. But when I saw his horoscope, soon after he declared his candidacy in July 2015, I knew he wouldn't fade away before the primaries, as all the pundits thought. Celebrated tycoon and reality TV star Mr. Trump has become a hero for many who feel threatened by changes happening in American society, and has promised to make America "great" again through his self-confidence and deal-making abilities. But his attacks on Latino and Muslim immigrants and refugees and his call to resume torture against America's enemies have turned off many voters. Mars rising shows his reckless tongue and aggressive approach, and in Leo it indicates his arrogance and pride. In fact, most people I ask who know even a little astrology can tell me before they even know his chart that he has Mars in Leo rising. It is as plain as the Sun at Noon on a clear day. George Wallace, one of the models for Trump's "demogogic" and "xenophobic" campaign, and who helped set the conservative trend in American politics since 1968, also had Mars in Leo rising. Just like Mars did for the self-proclaimed "extremist" Barry Goldwater in 1964, who had it rising in extreme, stubborn Scorpio, Mars rising could reveal Trump as his own worst enemy. Despite his relatively good score, therefore, he may be vulnerable.

Meanwhile, Jeb Bush couldn't live up to his worn-out family legacy, and his low 10-10 score confirms Donald Trump's label for him as "weak" and "low energy." By February 2016, Florida Senator Marco Rubio was considered the most-electable Republican candidate. But although young, polished and articulate, he still seemed unready for the job. His score is barely positive, 11-10, but Donald easily beat him with his 9-4. Another Senator, Ted Cruz, was running a strong campaign, despite his very low 4-11 score, by appealing to the most conservative wing of his very conservative party. He is unpopular with the Republican establishment because of his reckless behavior in the Senate. But Uranus and the Moon rising indicate his persuasive abilities and intelligence as a candidate, as well as his eccentricity and independence. The powerful and sometimes cruel and ruthless Pluto is rising in his chart too. But in the end, his unpleasant personality sank him, as his chart and low score predicted. For some observers like me, in fact, he appears to be the reincarnation of Joseph McCarthy, since their views, voice, face and gestures are all so similar. Among other candidates in 2016, George Pataki had the highest score, but was not compatible with his party. Carly Fiorina blazed into prominence at the debates, and Cruz chose her as a would-be running mate. Her high 16-7 score shows her talent, but she was too unknown to challenge the celebrity candidate (Trump). Unless she moves to another state, her best route to success in the future would be to take an important job in the Trump administration (which could happen sometime). John Kasich did well in the opinion polls against Clinton, but as his dismal horoscope score showed, he could not win elections.

The all-important new moon before election day indicates that the party in power will win again. So this sets up an interesting situation, in which the two main indicators might conflict. If Bernie Sanders is nominated, the new moon plus the fact that his score beats most candidates indicates potential victory, despite the odds against someone on the Left. But Hillary Clinton's score indicates that she is a weaker candidate than Sanders, even considering her strong qualifications and mainstream appeal. She can still beat Donald Trump, if his own statements and behavior have damaged his chances. I predict Hillary will win, because of the new moon before election, and because Clinton's own Jupiter and 2 other planets rising give her a virtual score almost even with Trump's. We will probably have seen how it all turned out and how my predictions fared for 2016 before you read this chapter.

Update: My prediction above did not come true. Apparently the pattern from the year 2000 repeated itself, wherein the New Moon before election indicated only the popular vote winner. Hillary won this by almost 3 million votes, yet lost the electoral vote by about 77,000 votes in 3 states. It was hard for me to anticipate, despite Al Gore's loss in 2000, that a candidate might win the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, and still lose the election. It seemed improbable, yet that's what happened in 2016.

Even though my prediction failed, the fact remains that the two methods I rely on the most, the horoscope score and the new moon before the election, were both correct. Donald Trump always had a higher score than Hillary Clinton, and the New Moon before election correctly predicted the popular vote.

Taking into account additional tallies and corrections I made to the aspects in candidates' charts, plus how Trump's win in the electoral college helped change a few of their point values, Hillary's horoscope score was reduced to 9-11. Candidates with negative scores very rarely win. However, I still think the chart showing Jupiter rising is correct, according to the predominance of evidence, although her birthtime is uncertain and "unverified" according to the experts. See the details and her chart here. That could still bring her score close to Trump's, so the indication remains that this election was hard to call.

There's a new monkey-wrench in the works, however. Uranus is the planet of unexpected events. As I mentioned above, when Uranus is at the Nadir of the New Moon chart, the place where the Sun is at Midnight, a "revolution" can topple the party in power. But, astrologers use different methods for calculating a horoscope. Some use what's called the "equal house" system, in which the houses of the horoscope are measured equally in 30-degree segments from the Ascendant. And all astrologers agree that a strong square angle to the Ascendant is significant. In 2016, Uranus was square to the Ascendant from below the horizon, and thus on the cusp of the 4th house according to the Equal House system (but in the 3rd by the regular systems), and not at the Nadir point. Yet, the 2016 election was something of an unexpected revolution against "the Establishment," or at least many of those who voted for Trump thought that's what they were voting for.

This new moon pattern had never happened before a USA presidential election until 2016. And Trump is himself certainly a wild card; perhaps even a visitor from the Twilight Zone. Being unprepared for the presidency, and bent on an extremely reactionary course, his actions are likely to be disruptive, and possibly destructive and dangerous. When Uranus is involved, astrologers know that we can expect the unexpected.

But here's an added wrinkle! Although Uranus had never been in this position before in any presidential election, this will also happen in 2020. At the New Moon before the Election, Uranus will be square to the Ascendant again from below the horizon, from the 3rd house in the usual house systems, for only the second time ever. Plus, Uranus is also the ruler of the Ascendant in this chart, because Aquarius is rising. That means it represents the challenging party too. Being below the horizon, with the ruler of the party in power above the horizon and higher in the sky, this normally means that the challenger would lose. But these are not normal times. In 2020, Uranus squaring the Ascendant from below the horizon could topple the party in power again.

Being an unprecedented situation, it is no basis for a firm prediction. And it probably won't happen unless the Democratic candidate has a better score than Trump's. That means according to my latest count, that the Democratic nominee must have a better score proportionally than Trump's 9-4 score, if Trump runs again. In order to win, the Democrats have to nominate a candidate who knows how to appeal to the American people. (S)he must also be at the right age (that is, not between 55 and 59 inclusive, meaning Saturn Return not due), and (s)he could benefit somewhat from a birth chart that shows Jupiter rising, or be hurt by one that shows Saturn at the Nadir.

There is also the possibility that Trump could be impeached and removed from office, because he often plays fast and loose with the law. If and when this could happen will be something for astrologers to look at in the 4 years after Jan.20, 2017. And if this happens, and Pence is the Republican candidate in 2020, his 8-7 score is easier to beat! Trump may also decline to run for a second term.

Jupiter is also making its next conjunction to Saturn in Dec.2020, which means a change of direction within the Establishment. This time, it is also aligned with transformative Pluto, and in the sign Aquarius for the first time in 600 years. This is the next factor to look at. Meanwhile, let's summarize the outlook for the New Moon before the Election in the future. Remember, a candidate with a substantially higher score than an opponent, and who is less vulnerable to a Saturn Return, can still win in spite of the new moon indicator.

Indications for 2016 and beyond for the new moon before election:
2016: party in power wins (popular vote win) (Uranus square the Ascendant; possible "revolution" indicator)
2020: party in power wins (Uranus square the Ascendant; possible "revolution" indicator)
2024: challenger wins
2028: party in power
2032: challenger
2036: party in power
2040: party in power (close, 5 1/2 degrees difference)
2044: "revolution" possible, favoring challenger (party in power ruler is higher, but Uranus is in 4th house and square the Ascendant)
2048: party in power
2052: challenger
2056: challenger
2060: party in power
2064: party in power

Jupiter and Saturn may also upset the apple cart of expectations. Zero election years like 2020 and 2040, when Jupiter and Saturn make a conjunction, frequently mean a change in the party in power, or a new direction of policy for the country. In fact, since real democracy was established in America in Andrew Jackson's times, in every zero year election since 1840, the party in power changed, or the man elected died in office; or both.

Let's look at what happened in the zero years when Jupiter and Saturn were making their conjunction:

         1800: Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican, defeated incumbent John Adams, Federalist, in "the Revolution of 1800." Change in the party in power.
         1820: James Monroe, incumbent Democratic-Republican, re-elected over John Quincy Adams.
         1840: William Henry Harrison, Whig, defeated incumbent Martin Van Buren, Democrat. Harrison died in 1841. Change in the party in power, and death in office.
         1860: Abraham Lincoln, Republican, defeated Stephen A Douglas, Democrat (party in power), and 2 others. Lincoln assassinated in 1865. Change in the party in power, and death in office.
         1880: James A Garfield, Republican (party in power) defeated Winfield Scott Hancock, Democrat. Garfield assassinated in 1881. Death in office.
         1900: William McKinley, incumbent Republican, defeated William Jennings Bryan. McKinley assassinated in 1901. Death in office.
         1920: Warren G. Harding, Republican, defeated James Cox, Democrat (party in power). Harding died in 1923. Change in the party in power and death in office.
         1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt, incumbent Democrat, re-elected over Wendell Wilkie. FDR died in 1945. Death in office.
         1960: John F. Kennedy, Democrat, defeated Richard Nixon, Republican (party in power). Kennedy assassinated in 1963. Change in the party in power and death in office.
         1980: Ronald Reagan, Republican, defeated Jimmy Carter, Democrat (party in power). Ronald Reagan survived assassination attempt "by inches" in 1981. Change in the party in power.
         2000: George W Bush, Republican, defeated Al Gore, Democrat (party in power). Change in the party in power.

But since Reagan survived an assassination attempt soon after his election in 1980, and George W Bush survived in office after being elected in 2000, the zero year no longer automatically means that the president elected that year will die in office. And a change in party rulership only happened 7 out of 11 times from 1800 to 2000. So a change in the party in power is not guaranteed by any means in 2020. In fact, when one party was predominant (1820: the Democratic-Republicans, 1880 and 1900: the Republicans, 1940: the Democrats), the change in the party in power did not happen in the zero year. So there's a 7 in 11 chance that Trump (or his Republican party successor such as Pence) will not be re-elected in 2020. But unlike in 1820, 1880, 1900 and 1940, today one of the two parties is not dominant; in fact, the country is sharply divided. This might increase the chances that the party in power will change in 2020, and could make the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction a more important factor in 2020 than the 7 in 11 chance indicates.

All indications are that the 2020s will be a very progressive decade. It starts with Jupiter and Saturn joining together in Aquarius. With Pluto also in Aquarius starting in 2024, and Neptune in Aries starting in 2025-26, and with all three outer generational planets returning to or opposing their USA horoscope positions, indicating a possible revolution or civil war, it's hard to see a typical Republican getting elected in these conditions. What's more, the younger generation will be at their peak of voting power in 2024, and everything suggests they are not well-disposed to Republicans. The increasing diversity of the American electorate now also favors Democrats in presidential elections. In spite of this, Democratic Party power in 2016-17 was weak in the USA.

It's no secret that the voters are not happy with either of the two major parties. A strong independent candidate could beat both of them in 2024. Even Ross Perot, who had the money and charisma to win, but not a favorable horoscope, was able to rack up a good percentage of the vote as far back as 1992. A progressive takeover of the Republican Party seems less likely, but already Donald Trump is at least unconventional.

To predict future elections, an astrological prognosticator will need to balance all the various factors.



The Saturn Return

The third major factor is, as I have indicated above, the Saturn Return. This pattern was first discovered, and reported in 1940, by Grant Lewi in his book Astrology for the Millions. It generally boils down to this warning for aspiring candidates: if Saturn returns to its position in your horoscope when you run, or for the next three years, you will lose. You may win if it happens in your 4th year as president (if you have a positive horoscope score), but in that case sooner or later you'll wish you hadn't won! The Saturn Return happens to everyone when they are about 55 to 59 years old.

The Saturn Return didn't seem to bother the founding fathers, however. Of the first 6 presidents of the United States, five were elected just before their Saturn Return. The other, John Adams, lost his re-election bid even though his Saturn Return had already passed. These presidents were all chosen by the electoral college (except the 6th, chosen by the House of Representatives). The presidency was considered a job for a detached, comfortable, retired gentleman, according to Alexander Hamilton; not for an ambitious, Saturnian power-seeker like Aaron Burr. Once modern democracy was introduced in Andrew Jackson's time, however, American presidents were subject to all its rigors, temptations and tribulations, and therefore apparently to the Saturn Return too. In the election of 1824, the first during which the popular vote was a major factor, no candidate won the electoral college. John Quincy Adams beat Jackson in the House of Representatives, despite losing the popular vote. Both faced their Saturn return two years later, but Jackson's was due sooner. Since then, in fact, if both leading candidates face the Return, the one who faces it first is the one who generally loses.

Here is the list of all nominees who faced a Saturn Return, with the year in parentheses:

All declared candidates in 2016 are free from any impending Saturn Return. Obviously, all those born between 1961 and 1965 should think twice before running for president in 2020. And in general, people born in these years should not press their luck regarding their ambitions for power in the next 4 years, especially around the time of their exact Saturn Return.

Summarizing the pattern, then, we see that from 1824 onward, 30.5% of the losing major party candidates, and/or former or sitting presidents who lost, 18 out of 59, faced a Saturn Return. You can see the full pattern in the list in part 1, with candidates who faced a Saturn Return indicated by * or **. Given the potential age at which candidates can run is about 35 to 75, and the age at which they face a Saturn return is 55 to 59 (a 5 year period), that's about a 1 in 8 chance (12.5%). So Saturn Returns cost a candidate the election 2.5 times the chance rate.

10 candidates won the election despite their imminent Saturn Return. All 10 of these were candidates who faced a Saturn Return during the 4th year of their term, except McKinley, who was immediately assassinated. Some of these unlucky winners were re-elected too. These 9 4th-year survivors all faced disaster while in office. This pattern does not include the founding fathers, Washington through John Quincy Adams.

The 18 losing candidates include 4 whose Saturn Return occurred before the winner's Saturn Return in the same 4 year period. In 1824, Andrew Jackson faced a Saturn Return before John Quincy Adams, and lost; thus setting the pattern. In 1892, Benjamin Harrison faced his Saturn Return in the year of the election, 4 years before Grover Cleveland faced his. In 1964, Barry Goldwater faced his Saturn Return some months before Lyndon B. Johnson did. And in 1968 Hubert Humphrey faced his Return a year and a half before Richard Nixon did.

But Woodrow Wilson won in 1912 despite facing his Saturn Return in 1915-1916 a few months before his opponent Taft did in 1916, and was re-elected in 1916 before his opponent Charles Evans Hughes faced his Saturn Return 4 years later.

The 18 candidates who lost while facing a Saturn Return during the election or the upcoming term were: Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Horatio Seymour, Winfield Scott Hancock, James G. Blaine, Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft, Charles Evans Hughes, Al Smith, Herbert Hoover, Adlai Stevenson, Barry Goldwater, Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis. What a list of victims!

The most sobering conclusion from all the data is this one: 11 out of 12 candidates who ran for president in the general election while facing a Saturn Return which was due only in the first three years after the election, lost it. (91.6%). The only one who made it into office under this condition, William McKinley in 1900, was assassinated in the first year. These 11 candidates were: Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Horatio Seymour, Winfield Scott Hancock, Herbert Hoover, Adlai Stevenson, Barry Goldwater, Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale. This pattern excludes the first 6 presidents.

Besides the 18 major candidates and presidents who faced Saturn Returns and lost a general election, 7 others were not even renominated by their party or chose not to run again when their Saturn Return was happening or due within 4 years, as if they knew what was coming. These presidents were: John Tyler (due before what would have been his next term began), Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, and Lyndon Johnson; plus, Rutherford B Hayes also honored his original pledge not to run for re-election to a term in which his Saturn Return was due. Only 5 other presidents since 1824 chose not to run or were not chosen to run again, with no imminent Saturn Return (Polk, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Truman). So 58% of those presidents who didn't run again or were dumped faced a Saturn Return, compared to the 12.5% chance rate.

4 others who faced a Saturn Return during the term to which they were elected, died while still in office due to the strains and conflicts they faced. These presidents included: Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Warren G Harding and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These men all died, of course, after being elected in a zero year. That's 29 candidates so far who lost, didn't or couldn't run again, or died while facing their Saturn Return.

7 other presidents, all with a Saturn Return due in the 4th year after their election or re-election, faced a long and grueling war during the term to which they were elected; a war during which their presidencies were destroyed. These were: Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. McKinley was assassinated, Wilson suffered a stroke, FDR died, Lyndon Johnson did not run again, and Richard Nixon resigned; only George W Bush survived more-or-less intact, but with his and his family's reputation shattered. Abraham Lincoln did not suffer his Saturn Return until his second term, when a man who could not accept that the Civil War was over shot him just one week after the war ended, and only a month after the second term began.

Nixon resigns in 1974, after facing his Saturn Return in 1972 (Watergate)

But some presidents faced no Saturn Return during wars that were less taxing on them, including John Adams (war with France), James K. Polk (Mexican War), Harry Truman (Korean War) and George H W Bush (Gulf War). They did not face Saturn Returns during their time in office. James Madison faced a Saturn Return just before a war (War of 1812), although this was before the democratic era began in 1824, and his presidency wasn't destroyed by this war, even though the war was poorly fought.

Benjamin Harrison was elected in 1888 despite an upcoming Saturn Return due 4 years later, but then lost his bid for re-election in 1892. Like John Quincy Adams, he did not win the popular vote when he was elected. Harrison faced a recession and a lot of labor rebellion during his term. It only got worse for his successor Grover Cleveland, who was also elected with his Saturn Return due in the 4th year of his term. The birth of the modern "populist" or "pro-labor" Democratic Party that we know today followed from these years of turmoil and transformation under the epochal Neptune-Pluto conjunction. All bets are off under this unique, once-in-500-years cataclysmic cosmic event. The fortunes of civilization and all who tend to it are up in the air.

From this list of victims you can see how heavy a burden the Saturn Return weighs on presidents and candidates. Almost all major party nominees and presidents who experienced it since 1824, 33 of them in all, were defeated, didn't run again, died in office or suffered a debilitating disaster. Only ONE candidate faced a Saturn Return while running for or in office who managed to avoid landing on this list: the very first one, and one of the first 6 presidents, John Quincy Adams in 1824, who won his election in the House despite losing the popular vote, beat a candidate who suffered a Saturn Return before he did, and then lost to him anyway four years later!

Saturn represents the state, and ambitions for power. Power corrupts, and it's addictive too. It's hard to let go of it. Presidents are no different; they often suffer for their ambitions, as do we all.

No candidates in 2016 faced a Saturn return for the next 4 years up until the election of 2020.

However, note the warnings for Gavin Newsom and others on the list in Part 1 for 2020 and 2024: see Who Scored What.


Saturn in the Houses

So Saturn is an important planet to watch when predicting elections of presidents; maybe the most important planet. In this regard, Grant Lewi suggested another pattern involving the "Lord of Rings." It was also discussed in Astrology for the Millions, and it involved Saturn's current position in the houses in relation to a candidate's horoscope at the time of the election. (Lewi, op.cit, p.24-25) Saturn takes 29 years to move through the zodiac and around the Sun, and as it does so, it moves through the houses of our horoscope, which represent 12 segments of the sky at the place we were born. "Great men of destiny," he proposed, reach their peak of power when Saturn is in the 10th house or Midheaven of their horoscope (the place in the sky where the Sun is overhead each Noon), "emerge from obscurity to prominence" when Saturn is rising through the 7th house or Descendant (where the Sun is at Sunset), "make a new start" when it's at the Nadir (where the Sun is at midnight), and attain a victory but start to fall when Saturn is in the 1st house or Ascendant (where the Sun is at sunrise).

So according to Lewi, Saturn indicates a triumph in the 1st house, then a fall into obscurity in the 2nd and 3rd, a nadir of fortune and a new start at the 4th, beginnings of a rise in status in the 5th and 6th, emergence in the 7th, rise to power in the 8th and 9th, peak of success at the 10th, and a fall from power or beginnings of lower status in the 11th and 12th, with possible concern for dedicating the benefits of past success to higher causes. According to this theory, therefore, winning candidates are more likely to have Saturn passing through their upper houses above the horizon (7th through 12th), OR in the first house, than in the houses (2nd through 6th) below the horizon.

However, losing candidates have also achieved status and emerged from obscurity just by having been nominated to run for president. It stands to reason that some of them too may be reaching their own peak of power and influence in the world, even though it may not be enough to beat the other guy. So some of them will also have Saturn above the horizon, and if the theory doesn't always work, we can expect that some election winners will have their planets below the horizon too.

And since it's known that planets are more significant when on the angles and the angular houses, the four corners of the chart-- those key positions called the Midheaven or 10th house, Descendant or 7th house, Nadir or 4th house, and Ascendant or first house, candidates might be expected to do better if Saturn is in these positions. However, we can't expect much success if Saturn is at the Nadir of Fortune (the 4th house). Remember too how important the Ascendant and Descendant were in our horary New Moon before election method.

Succedent houses are considered second to the angular ones in power and help to success. These are houses 2,5,8 and 11. Cadent houses are thought to be the least powerful or helpful to success. These are houses 3,6,9 and 12. But a planet in a cadent house that is within 3 to 5 degrees of the angle, is considered to be angular. For purposes of this investigation, I only allowed Saturn to be within 3 degrees of the angle to be considered angular.

Research data to check on this theory is somewhat limited by the uncertainty and lack of knowledge of the birth times for many candidates. So our data pool is somewhat limited too, and thus this method is less reliable than the other 3 methods I've covered. Obviously, horoscopes of presidents are more likely to be known than those of losing candidates too. But I ran a check and came up with the following results for all candidates, in the general election only, whose birth times are known with at least moderate or reasonable certainty:

Saturn in house victories defeats
1 (Ascendant) 6 2
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 (Nadir) 2 4
5 3 0
6 1 7
7 (Descendant) 7 4
8 6 6
9 5 3
10 (Midheaven) 6 2
11 2 4
12 5 5
upper houses #7-12: 31 25
lower houses #1-6: 17 17
angular houses 21 12
succedent 13 12
cadent 14 18
total: 48 42

Although these results are not overwhelming, they pretty much conform to our expectations. 31 winners had Saturn above the horizon of their horoscope at the time, while only 17 had Saturn below (which includes 6 in the fortunate first house). And there were 6 more victories than defeats with Saturn above the horizon, and about the same number of victories and defeats with Saturn below. If we add the 1st house to the upper houses though, that's 37 victories and 25 defeats with Saturn passing through the upper houses, and only 10 victories vs.16 defeats in the lower houses. So having Saturn above the horizon during an election is an advantage, but no guarantee of success.

The first house, the 10th house and the 7th house had the best rates of success, as we might expect, since they are angular houses. Victories were most likely with Saturn in the angular houses, less likely when found in the succedent, and still less in the cadent. But again, this is only a trend and not a rigid rule. Future elections could conceivably see some of the patterns change. But Saturn in the 4th house, the Nadir of Fortune, has only a 2 and 4 record. Before 2016 the only victor was Grover Cleveland in 1892, a year pregnant with the great change in civilization; but his birth time is uncertain. It's not a large sample to work with anyway, compared to the other methods. Donald Trump beat expectations; he won the electoral vote despite Saturn transiting at his Nadir of Fortune.

Besides the Nadir/4th house, the worst house for Saturn has been the cadent 6th house (1-7), also known to astrologers as a house of sickness, servitude and apprenticeship. Meanwhile the 5th house of "romance and sport" has a perfect but very limited record of 3-0, all in recent elections.

We can expect that usually the election winner will have Saturn in a better position than the losing candidate. So let's look at some recent match-ups, which contribute to the overall pattern:

year winnerhouse loserhouse
1928Hoover 7 Smith 2
1932FDR 5 Hoover 9
1936 FDR 6 Landon 4
1940 FDR 8 Wilkie 3
1944 FDR 10 Dewey 9
1948 Truman 11 Dewey 11
1960 Kennedy 3 Nixon 4
1964 Johnson 7 Goldwater 4
1968 Nixon 8 Humphrey 12
1972 Nixon 10 McGovern 12
1976 Carter 10 Ford 4
1988 Bush 5 Dukakis 8
1992 Clinton 5 Bush 6
1996 Clinton 7 Dole 12
2000 Bush 10 Gore 11
2004 Bush 12 Kerry 8
2008 Obama 7 McCain 7
2012 Obama 9 Romney 6
2016 Trump 4 H. Clinton 1

Particularly interesting, as we might expect, is the 2000 match up. While the New Moon before the election showed Gore barely winning the popular vote, Saturn cast a different spell. Once again it was breathtakingly close. Saturn was just inside George W Bush's 10th house, right on the border (or cusp) of the 11th, while Gore's Saturn had just slipped into the 11th, right on the border/cusp of the 10th. This gave Bush a slight advantage in this epic, razor-thin contest.

In 2016, since Trump beat the usual pattern, this indicator seems less reliable; although Trump beat Hillary by the narrowist of margins, and Hillary won the popular vote substantially. Before 2016, there were very few anomalies in this pattern. As you can see from the table, most winners since 1932 had Saturn in a better place than the loser, and if the positions were about even, the election was close. This held mostly true for elections before 1932 as well, although many of the losers' birthtimes in this period were unknown. Taft's loss in 1912 was an exception to the pattern, since Saturn was in his first house that year, as it was in Hillary's chart in 2016. The controversy over Hillary's time of birth also casts some doubt on Hillary's advantage with this pattern.

Connections to the USA Horoscope

Another method astrologers sometimes use is conjunctions with the US horoscope by planets in candidates' charts. Using the birthday for the USA of July 4, 1776 at about 5 PM, I compared the planets' positions in the horoscopes of 44 presidents, and 97 other candidates who never served as president, with the US chart. I found that presidents had such a connection 1.7 times more often than did defeated candidates, when restricting the orb (amount of exactitude) of their conjunctions to US planets to only one degree. When I extended the orb to 2 degrees, I found only a 1.06 times difference. In this method, I used a time of 12 PM to cast charts for candidates whose birth times were not known.

Perhaps this method might explain some unusual and unique attractions Americans have had to some presidents, and some of the talents they have offered the nation. For example, maybe the fact that George W Bush and Calvin Coolidge both have their Sun in Cancer (sign of home, motherhood and apple pie) exactly aligned with America's Sun, accounts for why the people like their home-spun, simple and complacent personalities. Teddy Roosevelt's connection between his rising Jupiter and the USA's Mars certainly illustrates how TR expanded our aggressive and courageous spirit and our penchant for waving a "big stick" around in other nations' faces. Another aggressive leader was George Bush's father H.W., whose Sun was aligned with and stimulated the nation's Mars to "overcome the Vietnam syndrome" and get us into wars again; successfully in his case. Maybe Richard Nixon's conjunction of mysterious Neptune with America's "tricky magician" Mercury explains our fascination with all his nefarious and secretive activities. Thomas Jefferson certainly awakened the country's ability to transform itself by reminding us that a revolution is a good thing every generation or so. His natal Uranus was conjunct America's Pluto. And James Madison certainly kept the common people's spirit of freedom alive through the connection between his Uranus and the nation's Moon in Aquarius. Barack Obama tried to clean up the international mess left by George W. Bush, and to advance health care too, perhaps because his warrior planet Mars was right on top of the nation's Neptune in health-conscious Virgo in the 9th house of foreign affairs.

Donald Trump's Saturn connects within 1 degree to America's Mercury in the 8th house (financial dealings) in Cancer (a sign of nationalism and racial heritage), which might go a long way to explain the appeal of his promise to "build a wall" on America's southern border (Saturn = limits and barriers) and "make America great again" through tough deal-making. Venus is also close to this US Mercury, with his Sun close to the US Mars in Gemini. No other current candidates have such a strong US chart connection. It may have given Trump an advantage, but this indicator may not be as powerful as the others, since the ratio of winners to losers is only 1.70. (This percentage rose by .05 with Trump's victory, making it probably at least as good an indicator as Saturn in the Houses).

The Spirit of the Times: Uranus, Neptune and Pluto

Another connection I found was very interesting, however. From the time of Teddy Roosevelt, who launched the USA's career as a world power able to make progressive reforms, until the reign of Ronald Reagan, who helped end the Cold War that had kept us so involved in the world, but also turned our nation away from the progress that TR and his cousin FDR had launched, the outer three planets connected our presidents to the zeitgeist, or spirit of the times. ALL 14 out of the 14 presidents between and including TR and Reagan experienced a visit of Uranus, Neptune and/or Pluto over one or more of their most personal indicators, the Sun, Moon or Ascendant, within orb of a conjunction and in the same sign, sometime during their time in office or on the campaign trail. This is more than twice the chance rate. This connection put them in touch with the spirit of the times and the thrust of world progress, and were called upon to serve this higher calling. Plus, JFK had a special posthumous connection, as Uranus and Pluto joined together exactly on his Moon in Virgo 2 years after his death, showing how his revolutionary work lived on in the efforts of his successors (LBJ also had Moon in Virgo; Nixon had Virgo rising).

After Reagan, and probably because of the direction he took the country, the next 3 presidents didn't have this connection; not either President Bush, nor Bill Clinton. This indicates what we all know; that these 3 recent presidents failed to lead us toward the high potential that lies within the spirit of these times.

Note however that Reagan may not have had this connection either. It is based on a birth time of about 4 AM with a Sagittarius Ascendant, which would have connected him to Uranus and Neptune transits during his 2 terms. However, this birth time is uncertain. Note also that Herbert Hoover just barely had Neptune transiting over his Sun in Leo when he ran for president; but then lost it once he entered the White House and the Depression hit. Something similar happened to Richard Nixon. Uranus and Pluto were still in Virgo, his rising sign (same degree as JFK's Moon), for his first year or two, but once he went down the Watergate path starting in 1971, he was off track.

None of the Republican candidates (including Donald Trump) who ran in 2016, except possibly the pragmatic underdog John Kasich (whose Moon in Capricorn is now being contacted by Pluto), give us this key connection; this tap well and direct line to the higher Spirit flow. But the situation is different for the Democrats. Both Bernie Sanders, whose Moon-Mars conjunction in activist Aries (the sign of the happy warrior) is being visited by revolutionary Uranus, and Hillary Clinton, whose sympathetic Moon in Pisces is just now getting connected (but not quite before the election) to visionary and compassionate Neptune, have the opportunity to get us back on track, IF we elect one of them. And since Barack Obama was also connected to Neptune through his Ascendant, (which we now know, thanks to Trump's pressure on him to release his birth certificate), Hillary is right that she will continue the work that Obama started. In fact, Jupiter and Chiron (the centaur asteroid called "the wounded healer") joined Neptune as it moved very close to Obama's Ascendant in Aquarius in December 2009-- just before the health care reform often named after him was passed. Because I used that conjunction to successfully predict that Obamacare would pass, among other successful predictions I had made, I decided to write this book.

It should be no surprise however that with Trump's election in 2016, we in the USA are again now seriously off-track from the world spirit of progress. It seems fitting that Trump has a strong connection to the nation, but not to the world.

I hope that any future presidents we elect will keep us "on the road again" to world peace and progress. It might be worth looking at future candidates' charts to see which of them are up to the task. They will be-- IF they have these kinds of connections to the current positions of these three creative and transcendental planets that represent humanity's genius and progressive, communal spirit.



Horoscope for the New Age