Predicting Presidential Elections

HOROSCOPE FOR THE NEW AGE

Predicting Presidential Elections

by E. Alan Meece

From HOROSCOPE FOR THE NEW AGE
now available here as a kindle ebook, and
here as a paperback

May 2016 (updated Dec. 2016, Oct-Nov.2020) (further updated as needed)

See also Horoscope for the New Millennium, the first-ever complete book on planetary cycles, now re-released as an e-book for only $4, with lots of predictions on years still to come

(See part 2 of this article/chapter here)

See my video: Election 2020 Preview: who can win the presidential election?

The List: Scoring the candidates' horoscopes
Who Scored What
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
Chart sources and birth dates of presidents and candidates in the database and on the lists in this article.
Research Notes: scoring the candidates, including tallies and rankings of aspects; the new moons before elections, and more
The Progressive 2020s Astrological indications of a reform era, and a list of proposed reforms

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. And it was easy to predict Obama would win the general election in 2008.

When it was getting time for the 2012 election, I made a new list. I further revised it in 2016, and 2020. 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 21-5: 21 points for favorable aspects and 5 points for unfavorable. In 1936 FDR defeated Alf Landon, who had a score of 11-14, by a landslide. He went on to beat Wendell Wilkie (10-10) in 1940, and Thomas Dewey (9-7) in 1944. In this example, Landon had what I call a "negative horoscope score" (more unfavorable than favorable aspects). From 1932 onward, no candidate with a negative score has been elected president. In fact, since 1932 every president elected but two has had twice as many favorable to unfavorable aspects; often three or four times as many, or more.

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 and the midheaven.

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 2020 and may be made for future elections.

From all my results, one thing is clear. Only skilled candidates ever win presidential elections in the United States of America. And it doesn’t even take astrology for most people to see which candidates these are. We can all observe them. We often like to think that people vote for candidates who propose the policies they agree with, and we also might think that the candidate with the best policies is going to win. Especially those on the left and some on the right tend to think this. But it’s not true. The candidates that win are those who have the strongest personalities; the most charismatic, the most likable, the most articulate and the most confident among the current candidates; those who connect with the people. For the presidency, Americans in the USA vote for the person, more than for policies. They are choosing a leader, and they vote for the candidate whom they think has the qualities of a leader. They don’t generally vote for policy wonks unless they also have the other qualities. They sometimes make some pretty poor choices on this basis, in my opinion. In fact, the best candidates don’t necessarily turn out to be the best presidents, although many times they do. The best candidates are first of all the most persuasive and likable; someone whom people want in their living room every night. If these personal qualities serve them well in office by helping them get things done, then it’s an added bonus-- if they are smart and actually propose the best policies that serve the current needs of the people.

Note that this system is almost-entirely empirical; it depends on the aspects of the candidates. At each election it becomes part of this system. So unlike Allan Lichtman's famous system, it DOES change a bit after each election. I have not yet revised any aspects scores after the 2024 election. I expect much fewer changes than for 2020, when I streamlined the scoring for the aspects and when there were many more candidates running (because in effect there were two incumbents running).

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: Oct. 2020)

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 or square Neptune, 2 points (vision, compassion in action, connection to the people)
Sun conjunct Neptune, 1 point (visionary connection to spiritual or humanitarian purpose and values)
Moon trine or sextile Mercury, 1 point (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, 2 points (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 (at its best: steadiness, integrity, sacrifice; like George Washington, but may be cold)
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)
Mars conjunct Neptune, 1 point (idealistic energy connects well with the masses)
Mars square or opposite Pluto, 1 point (an un-expected boon to presidential candidates; well-directed transforming energy)
Jupiter trine or sextile Uranus, 2 points (the popular hero)
Jupiter trine Neptune, 2 points (expansive or compassionate; eloquent ideals, connects with the masses)
Jupiter opposite or square Neptune, 1 point (compassion in action)
Saturn trine, sextile or conjunct Neptune, 1 point (visionary realism)

For a strong aspect among any of these above: add 1 more 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.

Minimum allowable orbs 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, 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 among the same planets 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 among the same two planets 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.

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 above) to the Moon. For other lunar aspects that normally 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. If I am certain that the aspect occurred all day, and it's worth 2 points, then I count 2 points.

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 semi-sextile Venus, 1 point (may be too docile or dithering)
Sun conjunct Mars, 2 points (restless energy, overworks, may be too combative)
Sun opposite or square Saturn, 1 point (found in the charts of a few crisis-era presidents, but normally means stagnation or too many obstacles)
Sun trine, sextile or conjunct Pluto, 2 points (may push too hard, or let energy run amok)
Sun opposite or square Pluto, 1 point (may be too pushy or ruthless, e.g. TR)
Moon opposite or square Mercury, 1 point (careless or radical speech)
Moon conjunct Venus, 1 point (somewhat careless or complacent)
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, 2 points (thinking too rigid, dull speaker, or gets stuck in ruts)
Mercury trine or sextile Pluto, 2 points (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)
Venus trine or sextile Neptune, 1 point (may be too good for the world; low stress endurance)
Mars opposite or square Jupiter, 2 points (reckless prodigality; unfocused)
Mars conjunct Saturn, 1 point (bottled-up or unappealing energy)
Mars opposite or square Saturn, 2 points (unstable, or cruel)
Mars conjunct Uranus, 2 points (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 opposite or square Pluto, 2 points (ruthless domineering repels the people)

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 among the same planets 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 among the same planets 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 among the same two planets, 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 3 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 Saturn could gain a point if future candidates with it win and none lose.
Moon trine/sextile Uranus went back to +2 points, and could lose its extra point again if candidates with it lose and none win in the future.
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. Replacement would improve the scores of Wilson and LBJ, and subtract from Goldwater's. Traditionally, Jupiter is more fortunate than Neptune.
Mars opposite/square Pluto is traditionally unfavorable, but could get a point if future candidates with it win. THIS HAS HAPPENED.
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.
If candidates with Jupiter conjunct Pluto win, and none lose, I may consider scoring a point for it again, as I did briefly in 2020.

Unfavorable aspects:
Moon opposite/square Mars could get back its negative point if future candidate(s) with it lose and none win.
Moon opposite/square Venus: ditto
Moon opposite, square or conjunct Neptune may lose a negative point if future candidates with them 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. UPDATE: This aspect got its negative point back in my updated system.
Sun opposite/square Pluto gets a negative point on the new system, and could lose it if future candidates with it win and none lose.
Venus trine/sextile Neptune could get a negative point if future candidate(s) with it lose and none win. THIS HAS HAPPENED.
Saturn square/opposite Neptune could lose a negative point if future candidates with it win.
Saturn trine/sextile Pluto lost its negative points in the new 2020 system, but could get one or more of them back if future candidates with this aspect lose and not win.

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 17-5. James K. Polk had one of the best scores at 20-2. 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 16-1 score. History repeated itself when another victorious general, Dwight Eisenhower, won with a good 17-10 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, although for many successful presidents it helped; but basically it just indicates 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 1928.

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. Also, some aspects in the scoring system may be borderline cases, as we see above. 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. The horoscope scores fluctuate a bit after each election as I add new candidates and their aspects to the database. The scoring method includes all viable candidates in USA history, and the latest election immediately becomes part of that history.

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. All candidates since 1968 in my database actually ran in primary elections and caucuses. 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. I have posted all my latest research. See it posted here

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

J = Jupiter rising, on the eastern horizon or in the first house, greatly helps a candidate's chances. This is called the Ascendant, and indicates how your personality comes across. Surprisingly perhaps, the Ascendant and first house of personality is much more significant than the 10th house of status and administration for indicating winners of USA presidential elections. 8 major party candidates elected president had Jupiter rising (including Polk, Taylor, Lincoln, Grant, LBJ and Bill Clinton), and only 1 was never elected: Walter Mondale (12-12). Mondale also faced a Saturn Return. Bill Taft and Teddy Roosevelt who had Jupiter rising 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 and losing 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 LBJ 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 good 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, along with the iconic Abraham Lincoln (4 planets rising). 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 90 extra points just for his Jupiter rising to make up for his much-poorer score than Ronald Reagan's.

In the charts of the two candidates with Jupiter rising who did the best, both winning big (although only once) in spite of having lower scores than their opponents, Jupiter was apparently in close conjunction to the rising degree. These were Lyndon Johnson and Theodore Roosevelt. By contrast, Walter Mondale's Jupiter was well below the horizon. Other candidates with Jupiter rising are in between these indications. How closely Jupiter is aligned with the Ascendant thus seems a factor in how much of an advantage it is. Note that astrologers consider conjunctions to the Ascendant to be important aspects in their own right. The New Moon before the election (see part 2) also favored TR and LBJ. In 2016 I had thought Hillary Clinton probably had Jupiter rising, so I thought that it and the favorable New Moon before the election helped her chances. It seems now that her birth certificate has been found, and she doesn't have Jupiter rising after all; just Uranus in her 1st house.

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.

M = Mars rising indicates a candidate who might be belligerent, aggressive, temperamental, impulsive and/or compellingly energetic; it's not always such a fortunate position for a USA presidential candidate. Andrew Johnson (not listed here) is a typical example; his Mars-rising temperament ruined any chance he might have had to run for re-election in 1868 after succeeding Abraham Lincoln as president in April 1865.

* 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 soon 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 next election year (4th year of the term they seek), candidates can win or be re-elected, but they face disaster as president. If Saturn returns only during the 3 years after the election, they lose it. No candidate has yet been elected US president while Saturn was returning during their first election year. More details and statistics on the SaturnReturn 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 pretty good 12-8 score, enough to easily beat Bryan (5-5), who also had Saturn at his Nadir.

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 86 major party candidates whose birthtimes are known (10.5%); and in the chart of only one such candidate who was elected (Taft, but he lost re-election) (1.16%). 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 2020, 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 1932 onward, no candidate with a negative score has won the general election. The candidate(s) with the lower score lost 25 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 lower score by 1.2% than the winner (JFK).

Elections before 1932:

1789 and 1792: George Washington 17-5, unopposed
1796: John Adams 7-4 M, Thomas Jefferson 7-0
1800: Thomas Jefferson 7-0, John Adams 7-4 M, Aaron Burr 6-9
1804: Thomas Jefferson 7-0, Charles Pinckney 8-16
1808: James Madison 12-5, Charles Pinckney 8-16
1812: James Madison 12-5, DeWitt Clinton 11-11
1816: James Monroe 10-5 U, Rufus King 7-9
1820: James Monroe 10-5 U, John Quincy Adams 8-4
1824: John Q Adams 8-4*, Andrew Jackson 8-3**, Henry Clay 6-14 (a 4th candidate, William Crawford (10-3) had a stroke and could not compete; not counted)
1828: Andrew Jackson 8-3, John Q Adams 8-4
1832: Andrew Jackson 8-3, Henry Clay 6-14*
1836: Martin Van Buren 10-5, William Henry Harrison 11-12 U
1840: William H Harrison 11-12 U, Martin Van Buren 10-5*
1844: James K Polk 20-2 J, Henry Clay 6-14
1848: Zachary Taylor 13-5 J, Lewis Cass 7-14, Martin Van Buren 10-5
1852: Franklin Pierce 15-14, Winfield Scott ("Old Fuss and Feathers") 10-20 M
1856: James Buchanan 13-6, John C. Fremont 7-11 SN, Millard Fillmore 13-6*
1860: Abraham Lincoln 16-4 J, Stephen A Douglas 13-19, John Breckinridge 1-23, J?, John Bell 6-14
1864: Abraham Lincoln 16-4 J*, George McClellan 9-17
1868: Ulysses S. Grant 16-1 J, Horatio Seymour 9-15*
1872: Ulysses S. Grant 16-1 J, Horace Greeley 4-11
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes 7-3, Samuel J. Tilden 3-10
1880: James A Garfield 8-9, Winfield Hancock 6-10*
1884: Grover Cleveland 9-8, James G. Blaine 7-11*
1888: Benjamin Harrison 12-10*, Grover Cleveland 9-8
1892: Grover Cleveland 9-8*, Benjamin Harrison 12-10**, James B Weaver 13-9
1896: William McKinley 13-3 M, William Jennings Bryan 5-5 U, SN
1900: William McKinley 13-3 M*, William Jennings Bryan 5-5 U, SN
1904: Theodore Roosevelt (TR) 11-16 J, Alton B Parker 15-9
1908: William H. Taft 12-8 J/U, SN, William Jennings Bryan 5-5 U, SN
1912: Woodrow Wilson 11-9**, Theodore Roosevelt 11-16 J, William H. Taft 12-8 J/U, SN*
1916: Woodrow Wilson 11-9, Charles Evans Hughes 9-8*
1920: Warren G Harding 14-12*, James Cox 8-8
1924: Calvin Coolidge 9-10, John W. Davis 9-16, Robert LaFollette 7-13
1928: Herbert Hoover 11-12, Al Smith 6-15*

Elections from 1932 to 2020:
1932: Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) 21-5 U, Herbert Hoover 11-12*
1936: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-5 U, Alf Landon 11-14
1940: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-5 U*, Wendell Wilkie 10-10
1944: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-5 U, Thomas Dewey 9-7 SN
1948: Harry Truman 15-0, Thomas Dewey 9-7 SN
1952: Dwight Eisenhower (Ike) 17-10, Adlai Stevenson 5-19
1956: Dwight Eisenhower 17-10, Adlai Stevenson 5-19*
1960: John F Kennedy (JFK) 13-4, Richard Nixon 19-6
1964: Lyndon B Johnson (LBJ) 9-6 J/M*, Barry Goldwater 22-10 M** (he had Mars in Scorpio rising, with inharmonious aspects: the perfect symbol of his stubborn "extremism")
1968: Richard Nixon 19-6*, Hubert Humphrey 12-5**, George Wallace 3-5 M/J
1972: Richard Nixon 19-6, George McGovern 9-11
1976: Jimmy Carter 13-5, Gerald Ford 12-7 M
1980: Ronald Reagan 22-4, M?, Jimmy Carter 13-5*, John Anderson 13-8 J*
1984: Ronald Reagan 22-4, M?, Walter Mondale 12-12 J/U*
1988: George H W Bush 15-5, Michael Dukakis 2-12*
1992: Bill Clinton 23-2 J/M, George H W Bush 15-5, Ross Perot 7-12 (his Jupiter rising is evident, but it was 10 degrees above his ascendant, so I didn't count it officially)
1996: Bill Clinton 23-2 J/M, Bob Dole 12-18, Ross Perot 7-12
2000: George W Bush 19-2*, Al Gore 11-9 M
2004: George W Bush 19-2, John Kerry 7-15 (his score was much weaker in the revised system, but I predicted Bush was likely to win)
2008: Barack Obama 18-3, John McCain 13-12 (as predicted)
2012: Barack Obama 18-3, Mitt Romney 4-10 U, SN (as predicted)
2016: Donald Trump 9-4 M, Hillary Rodham Clinton 8-12 U (all my methods were correct)
2020: Joe Biden 16-7, Donald Trump 9-4 M (as predicted as of Oct.15, 2020)
2024: Donald Trump 9-4 M, Kamala Harris 3-17 (as predicted July 2024)

UPDATE: Before the 2020 election I simplified and streamlined somewhat the calculations for the scores for greater accuracy, and updated the database to include 2020 candidates. After the re-calculation in October, Biden had a 16-6 horoscope score, up from 14-7, which indicated that he would win over Trump, whose score remained at 9-4. I included Biden's aspects as scored for a winning candidate. Biden's aspects had not been in the database previously, since he had never run in a presidential primary before. Biden's score has been corrected to 16-7 because he has Venus sextile Neptune just 2 minutes of arc within the orb indicated by the rules. I seemed to have missed this before.

If Trump winning the 2024 election, however, it might also raise questions about whether elections from this point on will be fair, and whether our nation is any longer a democratic republic. The Supreme Court appointed by Trump and Bush ruled in 2024 that the president is above the law while in office, possibly rendering him into a king or dictator. If the return cycles to the USA horoscope are correct that a great crisis like the revolution, civil war and world war two are at hand, the stability and structure of our republic after this election could be at issue. If democracy in our republic has gone away, or if the office of president is abolished, in the 2020s decade or in the future, then this method will be out of date.

Best scores of any nominee: Harry Truman, 1948 (15-0), Ulysses S. Grant, 1872-76 (16-1 J), Bill Clinton, 1992-96 (23-2 J), James K Polk, 1844 (20-2 J). Worst scores: John Breckinridge, 1860 (1-23 J?), Michael Dukakis, 1988 (2-12), Kamala Harris, 2024 (3-17). Lowest scores by winning candidates: Theodore Roosevelt ("TR"), 1904 (11-16 J), James A Garfield, 1880 (8-9), Calvin Coolidge, 1924 (9-10), William Henry Harrison, 1840 (11-12), Herbert Hoover, 1928 (11-12). None of these 5 candidates ever won more than one presidential election.

Highest scores by losing general election candidates: Hubert Humphrey (12-5) narrowly lost to Richard Nixon (19-6) in 1968, who had lost to JFK in 1960. Jimmy Carter (13-5), who narrowly defeated Gerald Ford (12-7) in 1976, was defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Highest positive number in their scores among all candidates: Bill Clinton 23, Ronald Reagan 22. Barry Goldwater is an interesting anomaly, because despite losing by a landslide, he has a positive number of 22 in his score of 22-10. Although he lost, he paved the way for Reagan who also has 22 favorable points. The self-described "extremist" Mr. Goldwater could not come close to defeating LBJ though, who had Jupiter and 4 other planets rising (more than any other candidate ever), and because Goldwater's Saturn Return came before LBJ's. Had Goldwater run for president well after his Saturn Return had blocked him, when he had reconsidered his course and become much more moderate, and was seen as an elder statesman, he would have had a better chance to win. In any case, he was a popular cult hero, as his Jupiter-Uranus trine shows, and a principled man, and he was the founder of the current Republican Party.

Highest negative number in their scores: John Breckinridge, Chris Christie (not nominated). Lowest total points in their score: Thomas Jefferson 7-0, George Wallace 3-5. Wallace also had 4 planets rising, with belligerent Mars (M) closest to the Ascendant. Like Trump, Wallace's rising Mars was in Leo, making him a forerunner of Trump.

In all 60 elections, only 5 winners had a negative horoscope score (William H. Harrison, TR, Garfield, Coolidge and Hoover; (8.47%). 55 had a positive score (91.7%). By contrast, 38 losers listed here had a negative score (53.5% of 71). 26 losers had a positive score (36.6%), with 7 tie scores (3 by W.J. Bryan), but 17 of those with positive or tie scores were also president of the USA. Candidates who ran more than once are tallied for each time they ran. I include in this list above all general election candidates who got at least 5% of the vote.

Here's how the pattern stacks up. Since 1932, out of 24 winners of presidential elections, only 1 had a lower score on this system than the loser: LBJ (1964) (4%). In all 60 presidential elections in US history through 2024, only 7 winners had lower scores than one or more of their losing opponents (11.7%) This includes 1892, when both Benjamin Harrison and 3rd-party Populist candidate James B. Weaver lost to Grover Cleveland. 51 winners had higher scores (85%), and that's 23 since 1932 (95.83%). As of now, the leading 2 candidates had equal scores in 1820 (James Monroe and John Quincy Adams) and 1856 (James Buchanan and Millard Fillmore). All 4 have served as president.

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. And as the nation changes, what appeals to voters in the USA might shift a bit, which would make more recent scores a bit more accurate. But few 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 Ike (17-10), and LBJ (9-6) who had Jupiter and 4 other planets rising.

Another interesting fact related to this is that, from 1928 up to 2016, only one candidate with a positive number below 10 in their score had been elected (LBJ). The second was Donald Trump in 2016 and 2024, who has a 9-4 score, which beat Hillary Clinton's 8-12 (+U, or J as I originally thought), and Kamala Harris' 3-17. Trump and Hillary Clinton 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, 22-10+M, lost to Lyndon Johnson, 9-6+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 (including Goldwater). 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 5-5).

For all 60 elections in history through 2024, of the 8 losers on this list who had higher scores than the winners, only 3 of them did not have a SaturnReturn coming to block them. That's only 3 losing candidates who had higher scores than their opponents, without any Saturn Return, out of 71 losing candidates, or 4.2%. These were Thomas Jefferson in 1796 in an election with almost no campaign, who came back to win twice, little-known candidate Alton B. Parker in 1904 who lost to TR who had Jupiter rising, and 3rd-party candidate James Weaver in 1892.

5 candidates lost under a Saturn Return, despite having a higher score. 3 of them had their Saturn Return due only in the 3 years after the election: Jackson, Van Buren, and Goldwater. Taft lost to Wilson in 1912 with his Saturn due in the 4th year, and Benjamin Harrison lost to Cleveland in 1892 after winning in 1888 with his Saturn Return due in the 4th year, 1892. In 1856 former President Millard Fillmore, whose Saturn Return was due 2 years after the election, lost as a 3rd Party candidate to James Buchanan, with these two candidates tied in their horoscope scores.

A Saturn Return in the year of the election or the next election 4 years later evidently does not necessarily keep candidates from winning, although if they do win it means a very rough term ahead that destroys their presidency. This held true for Woodrow Wilson, and all the other winning candidates under this condition (see part 2).

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. His style and approach was not of the kind that normally appeals to Americans; he was often ruthless and aggressive. But his Jupiter rising (exactly conjunct Mars in the USA horoscope) gave him the generous, bouyant personality that triumphed, together with the positive popular vote indicator (New Moon before the election; see part 2) for 1904. This indicator was not with him in 1912 though, when he lost to Woodrow Wilson and William Howard Taft, whom he originally sponsored in 1908 and then opposed four years later. Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Moon and Mercury rising plus the New Moon indicator also boosted LBJ in 1964, who also had a lower score than his opponent, but who also was not a very likable or appealing candidate-- although a powerful, generous and aggressive one.

Conclusion: most of the time, the losing candidate had a lower score than the winner, and/or a Saturn Return coming in the next 3 years after the election.

Next, here's the list of recent and prospective candidates and their scores. This section, the remainder of Part 1, is the most subject to editing and updates. Many scores are subject to minor change if birth time becomes known, and scores for newer potential candidates are subject to correction for small errors in my count.

So far some of these scores have not been updated for the 2020 revised scoring system. I mark updated scores here with a + for the viable candidates added to the database in 2020, or already in the database from prior years, and updated scores for other potential or actual candidates not yet in the database are marked ++. I have not yet updated the aspects scores on "The List" since the 2024 election.

Republican potential or actual candidates 2012-2024 and beyond:

Donald Trump, 9-4 M +
J D Vance, 6-9 ++
Mike Pence, 7-7 (he might have 1 or 2 more favorable points if born sometime earlier or later in the day) ++
Doug Burgum, 19-5 ++
Ron DeSantis, 12-10 ++
Tim Scott, 17-7* ++
Spencer Cox, 17-4 ++
Kari Lake, 16-4 ++ **
Nikki Haley, 9-11*** ++
Tom Cotton, 17-9 (he could lose about 5 positive points if born before 7 AM; he could gain points if born after 4 PM) ++
Marco Rubio, 13-7*** +
Asa Hutchinson, 9-8 ++
Chris Christie, 14-24* +
Vivek Ramaswamy, 16-12 J ++
Larry Elder, 14-2 ++
Ryan Binkley, 14-11** ++
Francis X Suarez, 10-8 ++
Chris Sununu, 12-11 ++
Greg Abbott, 12-7 ++
Will Hurd, 12-3 ++
William Weld, 8-12 J +
Perry Johnson, 7-3 ++
Elise Stefanik, 12-10 ++
Ben Sasse, 12-13*** ++
Rick Scott, 13-9** ++
Mike Pompeo, 14-19*++
Joe Walsh, 11-13
Larry Hogan, 7-18 ++
John Kasich, 3-13 +
Ted Cruz, 4-14 U*** +
Dan Crenshaw, 15-7 ++
Mark Sanford, 5-7
Josh Hawley, 3-12 ++
Carly Fiorina, 15-6 +
Liz Cheney, 6-6**++ (rumors are she may run as a 3rd Party candidate; success is doubtful)
Tucker Carlson, 12-8 ++
Marjorie Taylor Greene, 16-6 ++
Lauren Boebert, 11-6 ++
Matt Gaetz, 9-5 ++
Byron Donalds, 6-7 ++
Jeb Bush, 10-10 +
Glenn Youngkin, 7-19** ++
Scott Walker, 8-11** ++
Rob Portman, 12-9 ++
Ben Carson, 4-9 +
Jeff Flake, 12-12
Newt Gingrich, 10-7 SN +
Rick Santorum, 6-14 +
Rick Perry, 11-8
Michelle Bachman, 11-13
Herman Cain, 11-14
Buddy Roemer, 6-11
Rand Paul, 8-9*
Ron Paul, 12-8 +
Mitch Daniels, 18-17
Mike Huckabee, 10-17 +
John Boehner, 9-13
Paul Ryan, 10-11***
Bobby Jindal, 15-13***
John Thune, 9-12*++
Peter King, 9-7
Sam Brownback, 8-9
Kelly Ayotte, 13-8**
Lindsey Graham, 2-7 ++
Jim Gilmore, 9-15 ++
George Pataki, 18-3 ++ (dropped out before the 2016 primaries; evidently too moderate for his Party)
Sarah Palin, 6-7 ++
George P. Bush, 4-7
Bob Corker, 11-21
Condoleezza Rice, 10-11 M ++
Kimberly Guilfoyle, 12-6 M** ++
Kristi Noem, 9-10 ++
Herschel Walker, 4-10 ++
Mehmet Oz, 7-10 ++
Steve Bannon, 11-4 ++
Jared Kushner, 11-6 ++
Ivanka Trump, 17-0 (her only negative aspect is now several points above negative territory in the aspect list; don't underestimate her!) ++
Donald Trump Jr. 6-18 ++
Eric Trump 5-11 ++
Barron Trump 9-11 U ++

Highest scores with no Saturn return due: Ivanka Trump 17-0, Donald Trump 9-4, Doug Burgum 19-5, Tim Scott 17-7, George Pataki 18-3, Carly Fiorina 15-6, Dan Crenshaw 15-7. Spencer Cox, 17-4, Governor of Utah, is a potential powerhouse and national-consensus moderate if he acquires a national profile before his Saturn Return indicator kicks in sometime in the 2030s. Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, 17-9, has a higher score if born after 4 PM, but lower if born before sunrise. Talk-show host Larry Elder, 14-2, who ran against Gavin Newsom for Governor of CA in the 2021 recall election and lost, but came in a strong second, is a potential carrier of Trump politics if he acquires a national profile. Will Hurd, 12-3, is running for 2024, but his status is low as a former congressman, and he is likely too moderate ever to be nominated by Republicans. Marjorie Taylor Greene, 16-6, is a disreputable extremist and conspiracy theorist, but also a champion fundraiser and might be dangerous if ever nominated. Perry Johnson, 7-3, seems too unknown, but his score is percentages better than Trump's.

Kari Lake is currently a very-alarming rising star. If she runs for president in 2028, her 16-4 score means she could win. Her Saturn Return in 2028 would mean she would have a rough term if she runs then, and failure as president would seem likely since she seems to have no interest or respect for the rule of law at all. Another possibility is that Lake is chosen as vice-president with Trump, and Trump's misconduct after winning the 2024 election causes his removal from office, with Lake succeeding, and then winning in 2028 and succeeding in her job as president-- thus ending the republic. Some of this seems fairly unlikely to me, however.

Democratic potential or actual candidates 2012-2024 (or later)
Joe Biden, 16-7 +
Kamala Harris, 3-17* ++
Gavin Newsom, 8-2 U** ++
Hillary Clinton, 8-12 U +
Bernie Sanders, 13-7 +
Gretchen Whitmer, 15-13*** ++
Josh Shapiro, 11-13*** ++
Elizabeth Warren, 6-9 +
Terry McAuliffe, 10-3 ++ (positive number higher if born before about 8 AM)
Mitch Landrieu, 19-2 ++
Robert F Kennedy Jr., 13-6 ++ (anti-vaxxer, has voice impediment; these factors may hamper his presidential bid)(note that many of his favorable aspects are squares to Neptune)
Raphael Warnock, 11-4** ++
Pete Buttigieg, 6-13 +
Cory Booker, 8-8** ++
Tim Walz, 11-14 ++
J.B. Pritzker, 12-8 ++
Dean Phillips, 4-9** ++
Marianne Williamson, 14-13 ++
Susan Rice, 14-7* ++
Amy Klobuchar, 11-11 +
Andrew Yang, 7-20 +
Sherrod Brown, 19-9 ++
Hakeem Jeffries, 6-10 ++
Beto O'Rourke, 9-24 *** ++
Kirsten Gillibrand, 7-19 ("Mrs. Firebrand" would score 9-17 if born before 6 AM, 7-17 if after 5 PM)** ++
Joe & Julian Castro, 7-13 ++
Tulsi Gabbard, 10-10 +
Steve Bullock, 11-7** ++
Stacey Abrams, 12-8 (many aspects uncertain)*** ++
John Delaney, 6-7* ++
John Hickenlooper, 6-11 ++
Bill DeBlasio, 12-16* ++
Eric Swalwell, 4-7 ++
Jay Inslee, 3-7 ++
Michael Bennet, 7-11* ++
Seth Moulton, 8-10 ++
Tom Steyer, 9-11 +
Tim Ryan, 2-11*** ++
Joe Sestak, 3-12 ++
Michael Bloomberg, 7-9 +
Mike Gravel, 8-20 ++
Wayne Messam, 16-8 ++
Martin O'Malley, 12-20* ++
Jim Webb, 11-7
John Fetterman, 8-6 ++**
Mallory McMorrow, 13-7 ++
Will Rollins, 13-4
Janet Napolitano, 9-8 ++
Tammy Baldwin, 13-6* (may have 1 to 3 more negative points if born in AM) ++
Tim Kaine, 10-9 ++
Michelle Obama, 5-8 ++
Andrew Cuomo, 10-6 ++
Brian Schweitzer, 9-4 ++
Deval Patrick, 8-7 ++
Mark Warner, 6-11 ++
Joe Kennedy III, 6-9 ++
Eric Garcetti, 10-11*** ++
Howard Dean, 5-10 U +
Jerry Brown, 5-11 +
Jason Carter, 11-3 ++
Antonio Villaraigosa, 13-4 ++
Joe Manchin, 6-10 ++
Zephyr Teachout, 4-12
Lincoln Chafee, 15-9
Russ Feingold, 12-14
Tom Vilsack, 15-6 ++
Al Franken, 9-9
Jack Markell, 14-9
Chuck Schumer, 15-9 ++
Debbie Stabenow, 8-3
Catherine Cortez Masto, 10-11*
Roy Cooper, 8-7 ++
Wes Moore, 7-11 ++
Chris Murphy, 8-5 (7-6, if born after 6 PM)*** ++
Jeff Merkley, 3-9
Eric Holder, 9-10 ++
George Clooney, 11-19*
Michael Moore, 17-8 SN ++
Oprah Winfrey, 12-5 ++
Stephen Colbert, 19-10* ++
Seth Meyers, 18-9*** ++
Bill Maher, 9-17
Chelsea Clinton, 9-7 U ++
Nancy Pelosi, 10-17 ++
Doug Jones, 11-8 ++
Nina Turner 12-9** ++
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 12-11 ++
Ayanna Presley, 16-17 ++
Michael Avenatti, 13-4*** ++
Adam Schiff, 10-13 ++
Ro Khanna, 13-11 ++
Jamie Raskin, 12-7 ++
Conor Lamb, 13-20 ++
Brian Schatz, 11-8*** ++
Richard Ojeda, 11-10*** ++
Richard Blumenthal, 11-8 ++
Mark Kelly, 13-7* ++
Jon Ossoff, 14-10 ++ (his score improves if he was born before 11AM)
Tammy Duckworth, 8-13** ++
Keisha Lance Bottoms, 11-13***
Val Demings, 8-9 ++
Barbara Lee, 19-3 ++ (19-4 if born 8 AM to 2 PM, 19-2 if born after 5 PM)
Karen Bass, 11-7 ++
Michelle Lujan Grisham, 14-11 ++
Kathleen C. Hochul, 7-11 ++
Phil Murphy, 7-5 ++
Javier Becerra, 10-7 ++
Kyrstin Sinema, 8-6 ++
Andy Beshear, 6-10 ++

More candidate scores will be added.

Best scores, with no Saturn Return: Mitch Landrieu 19-2, Terry McAuliffe 10-3, Joe Biden 16-7, Raphael Warnock 11-4, Antonio Villaraigosa 13-4, Tom Vilsack 15-6, Jason Carter 11-3, Barbara Lee 19-3 (same age as GW Bush, Bill Clinton and Trump). Sherrod Brown has a high positive number, and a good score: 19-9. Long shot Robert F Kennedy Jr. was running as an independent as of July 2024, but dropped out in October. He has 13-6, but he is an anti-vaxxer and is losing his already-handicapped voice. Troublesome and indicted attorney Michael Avenatti has 13-4. Mark Kelly is being mentioned, but his score is 13-7, lower than Trump's, and the same as Bernie Sanders'.

CA Governor Gavin Newsom (8-2 U) would be well-advised to serve for 2 full terms before running for president, since his Saturn Return would block a run in 2024. He won re-election in 2022, and wisely (apparently) did not run for president in 2024. Newson is probably the best-positioned Democratic candidate for 2028. The Democrats need to nominate him. A Saturn Return indicates a destroyed presidency if it happens in the 4th year of an upcoming term, and this condition would afflict Raphael Warnock for a run in 2024. So if he ran and won in 2024 he would likely be a victim of civil war conditions. He already has a national profile. Re-elected as Georgia Senator in 2022, Warnock could be a factor later.

McAuliffe was the recent and perhaps a future governor of VA, former Democratic Party chair, and former leader of the governors conference, as his friend Bill Clinton was before him when he ran. Note that Terry McAuliffe's score of 10-3 may be even higher if he was born in the morning. Another great choice would be the recently-retired Mayor Mitch Landrieu of New Orleans (19-2). Both McAuliffe and Landrieu have the energy, charisma and likability needed to win the presidency. Landrieu has a similar Jupiter-Uranus trine linked to the Sun and Moon as seen in both Bill Clinton's and Donald Trump's horoscope, but without Trump's negative factors. Landrieu was also Lt. Governor of Louisiana, an author, and comes from a political family. As of 2022 he is senior advisor to President Biden responsible for coordinating the implementation of the historic bipartisan infrastructure law. In 2024 he is a campaign manager for Biden.

If Kamala Harris, who was chosen to be vice-president in 2020, runs for president in 2024 or later, the Democrats will need to nominate Mitch Landrieu or Terry McAuliffe instead (or Gavin Newsom in 2028 or later), or they will lose the presidency. I predict that Kamala Harris will lose if she ever runs for president. Harris being in the position of vice president and a potential nominee for president is very risky to all hopes which Democrats may currently have. As I said in my video back in Sept.2018, "she should not run." Joe Biden made a mistake choosing her, and now it appears Democrats are stuck with her and are poised to lose the 2024 election, which will be a disaster from which the USA and the world will have a hard time recovering from. This prediction came true; Kamala Harris lost in a sweeping defeat that brought her Party out of power in congress.

Losing an election does often help lower a candidate's score after their own loss. After the 2020 elections, scores fell for many 2020 candidates. If my methods don't need further streamlining or checking for accuracy, then changes to the scores of all the candidates will get smaller over time after each election. But these days we often have a lot of losing candidates added to the database; 8 in 2020, and 8 in 2016, when normally since the sixties we have had about 4 or 5 each time. Because there are so many of them running these days, the scores for some of these new losing candidates can be adversely affected if they have in their charts some of the same aspects as their fellow-losing competitors do. Most of the other scores remain fairly stable, with only minor changes, after each election. Changes were greater for 2020 because I also streamlined the calculations for scoring the aspects to make the system more accurate.

A certain pattern might repeat if the USA goes to war in the 2024-2028 term. If the USA wins the war, a plain-speaking "nomad" generation (Generation X) general (see the Strauss and Howe Generation theory about nomad generations and crisis-era US wars) who wins the war might emerge as a candidate for president in 2028 or 2032. This candidate, if their score is high enough, would be a potential successor to nomad generation members George Washington (17-5), Ulysses S. Grant (16-1) and Dwight Eisenhower (17-10).

*Saturn return due between 2021 and 2024, can't be elected in 2020, or if born c. 1965, rough term if elected

**Saturn return due between 2025 and 2028, can't be elected in 2024, or if born c.1969, rough term if elected

***Saturn return due between 2029 and 2032, can't be elected in 2028, or if born c.1973, rough term if elected

Some other Independent/3rd party candidates:

Gary Johnson (Libertarian), 13-11 (ran in 2012, 2016) ++
Robert F Kennedy Jr., 13-6 (see Democrats; in late 2023 running as an independent)
Cornel West (Green, independent), 16-12 ++
Jill Stein (Green), 17-3 (ran in 2012, 2016; needs more qualifications, and major party backing; but an excellent candidate) ++
Evan McMullin, 8-4 (2016) ++
Ralph Nader (Green, independent), 7-13 (ran in 2000, and 3 other times) +
Sanders, see Democrats
note: Nader is the only one of these who is in the database. Gary is a potential addition.

Potential:

Mike Bloomberg, 7-9, see also Democrats
Mark Zuckerberg (party unknown), 12-9
Jesse Ventura, 13-11 M/U ++ (there could be no more typical Mars-rising candidate, and conjunct maverick Uranus to boot!
Mark Cuban, 10-7 ++
Laurence Kotlikoff, 12-5 ++ (qualified write-in 2016)
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, 9-5 U*** ++ (not bad)
Howard Schultz, 10-17 ++
Justin Amash, 8-13 ++

Some past candidates not nominated: (all scores below are updated ++)

Hiram Johnson, 10-12
Robert F Kennedy, 12-10 (so, he would not have won if he had survived)
Eugene McCarthy, 11-5 U
George Romney, 5-16
Nelson Rockefeller, 13-13
Ted Kennedy, 9-12
Edmund S Muskie, 7-10
Henry Scoop Jackson, 10-7
John Glenn, 18-12
Gary Hart, 9-18 U
Jessie Jackson, 6-7
Paul Simon, 15-6 SN
Richard Gephardt, 6-15
Bill Bradley, 11-16
Rudy Giuliani, 6-17
John Edwards, 12-8 U
Dennis Kucinich, 9-8
Howard Dean, 5-10 U
Wesley Clark, 11-15
Newt Gingrich, 10-7
Chris Christie, 14-24

Of all candidates never nominated by a party in my database, 40 had a negative score, 15 positive (usually narrowly), and 4 tie scores. Only one candidate in history in my database who was not nominated has a better score than that of the winner of the election: Carly Fiorina barely tops Donald Trump's score.

Another more-famous method of predicting presidential elections is The Keys to the White House by Allan Lichtman. I recommend it.