So now, it's time for the next phase: predicting whether this will be a one-term or a two-term presidency. I first began this exercise after the 2000 election, when I attempted to find a way to cope with the results. So I decided the examine the inauguration chart as predicitive of this difference between length of presidencies. And further, I started the exercise, not with the first inauguration, but with the establishment of the "modern" party system by Andrew Jackson - the system of spoils, as it has been called. So the earliest inauguration in my database was 1824.
Working with the inauguration chart has certain challenges from a mundane perspective, but these are precisely the challenges that should whet our appetites as astrologers. First, they always take place at a date and time mandated by the Constitution. Starting in 1949, Inauguration day is January 20th of the year following the election. Prior to that, it was March 4th. In either case, the time was noon. This, by the way, sets up one little tempest in a teapot right there. Most astrologers treat the time of the oath for the presidency as the actual time of office. It's doubtful that that would stand up in court, so to speak. Go back and read the Constitution and the amendments - then see what you think. The oath is just the public ritual.
However, the date and time do put a number of restrictions on the interpretation of the chart. The Sun sign, Ascendant and Midheaven are essentially fixed. So any predictive work from these charts has to be based on something other than, say, the Sun being in the 10th house.
So to begin my study, I decided to compare the inauguration charts of one-term vs. two-term presidents: and see what spilled out. The first fact that we need to know is that, in this system, there were 22 one-term presidents and 11 two-term presidents through George W. Bush. I began by studying the phase angle between all ptolemaic planets in the 8th harmonic. Where there was a difference, I am showing it here, plus commenting on the placement in the 2009 chart.
1. Moon-Mercury
Here's the graph for one-term presidencies:
Here's the graph for two-term presidencies:
I also examined a number of these combinations for presidents who either died in office, or resigned (i.e., Nixon). It's a small sample, but perhaps worth considering.
Comparing these two graphs, none of the two-term presidencies had a Moon-Mercury phase of 90 or 180 degrees. The most comment phase for the two-term was 270: the closing square. Remember that these are phases, not aspects: the phases correspond to the phases of the lunation cycle in modern astrology. The phase angle for 2009 is 270. While this would be the top choice among the two-term presidencies, 270 is not an uncommon phase in the one-term presidencies. So score this one either not predictive or slight nod to two-term. The died/left office had a high correlation with the 0 phase.
2. Sun-Mercury
Here's the graph for one-term presidencies:
Here's the graph for two-term presidencies:
Here's the graph for died/left office:
The Sun and Mercury by definition can only be in one of two phases, because the geocentric angular separation can never exceed 45 degrees. What was suggestive here was that, among the two-term presidents, there seemed to be no difference between the two phases. With the one term presidents, the 270 phase was half as common as the 0 phase. The 2009 phase is 0, so either we consider this no prediction, or a slight nod to one-term.
3. Sun-Jupiter
Here's the graph for one-term presidencies:
Here's the graph for two-term presidencies:
The shape of these two distributions is quite strking. In the one-term presidencies, there are no cases with the Sun-Jupiter in the 90 degree phase - while that is the most common phase for two-term. None of the two-term show the 0 or the 270 phase. 2009 has the 315 phase. This is a call to one-term, as 315 is more common than average (the horizontal line) in the one-term, and less than average in the two-term.
4. Sun-Saturn
Here's the graph for one-term presidencies:
Here's the graph for two-term presidencies:
Like the Sun-Jupiter, the phase angles here show a different distribution. The 90 phase is the most common for the two-term: the one-term group have that less than average. For the one term group, the 0 phase is the most common, while the two-term show that one less than average. The 2009 chart has Sun-Saturn in the 90 phase, so this is a prediction of two terms.
5. Mercury-Mars
Here's the graph for one-term presidencies:
Here's the graph for two-term presidencies:
Here, the main differences are that two-term presidencies show greater than average distribution in the 90 and 180 phase, while the on-term group show greater than average distribution in the 0 phase. 2009 comes out 0 phase: this predicts one term.
6. Mercury-Jupiter
Here's the graph for one-term presidencies:
Here's the graph for two-term presidencies:
The two-term group has 90 as the most common phase, with no examples of 0 and 315. 90 is uncommon in the one-term group, whereas 0 and 315 are average. 2009 is a 315 angle; this predicts one term.
7. Venus-Saturn
Here's the graph for one-term presidencies:
Here's the graph for two-term presidencies:
The one-term distribution shows the most frequent phase as 90, with 135 less than average; the two-term group has 135 as the most common, with 90 less than average, and 225 non-existent. 2009 has the phase angle of 135, predicting two terms.
So much for the phase angles. There are other distributions as well. Here are a few that I have already worked with.
8. Syzygy prior to Inauguration
Those of you who have followed my presidential party prediction model will recall that which syzygy: i.e., whether the prior lunation is a full or new moon, may be a predictive factor. So it made sense to examine it here as well.
In the one-term group, there's no difference in which syzygy preceeds the inauguration, whereas the two-term presidencies have a preponderance of full moons. 2009 is a full moon, which means it's not predictive.9. Retrograde Planets
It made sense to examine whether there was a difference in the distribution of retrograde planets between the two groups.
You will observe on the last two graphs that I have also inserted a category for "died in/left office." And it will be readily apparent on this graph that retrograde placements seem overly abundant in the "died in/left office" category: at least for Jupiter and Mercury. There do seem to be some differences in the distributions between one-term and two-term, but not regarding this year's retrograde planets: Mercury and Saturn. However, as we have just observed, Mercury retrograde is pretty common in the inaugurations of those who died or left office: Mercury retrograde appears 44% of the time in these charts.10. The Quadruplicity of the Moon
It is extremely common in horary to read relative timing off the quadruplicity of significant points in the chart. And what can be more significant than the Moon? Here are the results.
In the one-term presidencies, a cardinal Moon is most common; in a two-term one, a mutable Moon is. It's interesting that this is the pairing: cardinal for short-term makes sense, but mutable (or common as it used to be called) implied that two-terms is "common" or average - which it is not. Oh well. In 2009, the inauguration Moon is at 29 Scorpio. As fixed works out to be about the average point for one-term, whereas it is less than average in two-terms, I rate this an argument of a one-term presidency. And fixed is uncommon in died/left office, so this is another argument against that scenario.
So I got this far, with one-term leading two terms by 4-2. But I wasn't happy. One major factor is that 33 elections is not really that many, and unlike my party prediction model, I don't really have a track record for using the sum of these factors to correctly predict and outcome. So I decided to examine more factors.
11. The Quadruplicity of the Ascendant Ruler
Because the the noon charts erected for either March 4th or January 20th, there have only been two Ascendant rulers: Moon or Venus.
This one has a really distinct distribution: and one so extreme, that it's really compelling. Clearly, when the ruler of the Ascendant is mutable, there's a high likelihood of two terms, whereas cardinal and fixed look like one-term. The fact that this is so extreme is very important, because, most likely, some of these factors are not really that predictive. But this one looks like it could stand up. In 2009, the Ruler of the Ascendant is Venus in Pisces: so this calls a two-term presidency. As I said, this made me sit up and take notice!
11. The Quadruplicity of the Midheaven Ruler
If the Ruler of the Ascendant is significant, then why not the MC, as the MC is the king in the old mundane systems?
Frankly, the distributions here don't suggest much of anything, because, in all cases, cardinal leads the pack. In 2009, the MC ruler is Saturn in Virgo: mutable. By the way, the two MC rulers that have happened historically are Jupiter and Saturn.12. The Quadruplicity of the Part of Fortune
Again, this is not a particularly compelling distribution. One term presidencies are more likely to have the Part of Fortune in a fixed sign. In 2009, the Part of Fortune is in Pisces, so this one doesn't matter anyway this year.13. The Quadruplicity of the Part of Fortune Ruler
To understand what to do with this graph, remember that there have been twice as many one-term presidencies as two. So when I tell you that in 2009, Jupiter is Aquarius, what we do to compare the graphs is to take the frequency of fixed in the tw-term presidencies and double it - this produces 8. This is taking the 11 two-terms and normalizing them to the 22 one-terms. Now we compare 10 to 8: and the difference is not that big. No call here.14. The Quadruplicity of the Ruler of the Moon
What is immediately obvious with this graph is that one-term presidencies generally don't have the dispositor of the Moon in a mutable sign. As for the other quadruplicities, the effect is not that great. In comparing 22 one-term presidencies to 11 two-term, the number of two-term occurrences needs to be doubled to be of comparable size. In 2009, the Moon is in a cardinal sign. So: the cardinal number for this comparison is 6 (3 times 2), compared to 9 for the one-term: so a cardinal dispositor favors a one-term presidency.15. Which Planet is the dispositor of the Moon
In doing the quadruplicity of the Moon's ruler, I noticed that among the two-term presidencies, Jupiter seemed to be the most common dispositor. So I decided to break this out by planet. Here your see the three distributions top to bottom: one-term, two-term, died/left office, with the planets in the Chaldean order, starting with the Moon itself.
The one-term presidencies favor Saturn as the Moon's dispositor more, while the two-term ones favor Jupiter. As the dispositor of the Moon in Scorpio in 2009 is Mars, there is no prediction from this factor this time.So here we have it: ten factors which show a different distribution between these different presidential groupings. Of those which are predictive in the case of 2009, there are five arguments in favor of a one-term presidency, and three in favor of a two-term presidency. So my prediction based on these factors is for a one-term presidency. But I am really struck by the opposite prediction using the quadruplicity of the Ruler of the Ascendant.
What I have presented is the beginning of a model. Frankly, I would like to have a lot more factors.
One final note. Both my prediction here, and my prediction of the election itself, are based on mundane factors only. In other words, both these models imply that there is a current at work at the time of each election, and that the people who step into these roles of candidate or president do not contribute to the outcome: the die is already cast. Now, I have to say that I don't entirely believe that. If Barack Obama wins (and it would certainly be my personal preference), then one way of expressing this would be that his personal chart contains one or more configurations which allow him to rise above the mundane stream. Perhaps that's the next interesting study: what marks an individual to beat the odds? Both these mundane models very much imply that there is a script - and that oftentimes, the candidate simply reads the scripted lines, and the play moves effortlessly to Act IV. But not always. So what is this spark? At the moment, we don't know - but it certainly is an interesting question.
No comments:
Post a Comment