16
My Mother said she read a prediction that Bush loses in December? the author said he realized that the election was in november and was confused by his own prediction, but there you have it.
What makes this interesting is December is when the electoral votes are sent to the Congress, but they aren't counted until January I think. I have to check on that. To all of you who voted, you did NOT vote for Bush or Kerry. You voted for a slate of electors who are pledged (in some cases) to vote for their candidate when they meet in each state in December. I doubt the result will change. Kerry is not going to contest the election although his running mate wanted to.
In Robert Zoller's newsletter, the prediction was made that Kerry would win but would not finish his term, with Edwards assuming the presidency; Bush would not only lose, but go down in ignominy. The newsletter averred that this prediction would prove the superiority of medieval predictive techniques. Oh, my!
That "prediction" has been floating around for a while. Zoller has nothing to do with it. The New Library group that he used to be associated with sent it. They used the newsletter list that was made when Zoller was part of that group.

I was told Zoller is suing them or they are suing him over something. The prediction is interesting in that there isn't one bit of astrology in it. It pronounces itself infallible without describing a technique. There may be some embarrassed faces over there this morning. In fact there should be a lot of embarrassed astrologers around who confidently and frequently predicted a Kerry win based on little more than their own prejudices.

It is still legally possible for Kerry to win, but it would be unprecedented.


Tom

18
I?d probably understand it all better if I stopped looking at charts and watched the news once in a while. For some reason I thought it took days or weeks to count the votes.
A lot of us are not very happy today, to say the least.
Come now, it was a public vote not a boxing contest ? surely most of you Americans are happy or else how did Bush win ?

BTW, Zoller?s bone fide newsletter Nuntius, sent out personally by him and dated 19 October, did predict presidential change as one of his conclusions. In his ?opinions? he states:

"I just recently said to an audience of 20 people that I expected George Bush to remain in office as a result of the Election. After looking more closely at the figures presented here, I now think that Kerry may win. If, however, the current administration succeeds in capturing Bin Ladden before the Election, Bush will be a shoe-in."

I don't know what a 'shoe-in' is :-?

19
Come now, it was a public vote not a boxing contest ? surely most of you Americans are happy or else how did Bush win ?
We are a deeply divided country, most particularly in the areas of the cultural issues - abortion, gay rights, religion in government, etc. Most people here stick with their own kind with little mixing. I'd guess that most of the cultural conservatives would not be on an astrology website and would deem it to be 'satanic'. So if you just rely on people you meet through here, you'd think the whole country voted for Kerry.

Another interesting thing is that back in the 1970's, or even now for that matter, you won't meet anyone who voted for Nixon. Yet two years before he was forced to resign, Nixon won one of the largest landslides in history, taking 48 or 49 states.

On my tours, I meet PLENTY of Bush supporters. They are out there in droves, believe me. I had one couple who are part of an increasing trend in home schooling. To quote them, they took their kids out of the public schools because they "teach homosexuality" and "teach theory as fact" (evolution). I didn't mention to them that I volunteer at the Zoo and am involved with another guy.

I wouldn't bother using astrology to predict an election. One, like Tom said, you can just wait to find out the answer, and using astrology to find out sounds more like a way to test it, not to use it constructively. And I think it's better to use astrology to find ways to help yourself in your own life and unless we are personally involved in an election, i.e., running for office ourselves, I wouldn't think to use it. You're just asking for trouble. I am increasingly seeing astrology as a spiritual tool and predicting elections is not part of my path. I do wonder about how to use it of one's life were involved with politics. All of this seems well over my head.
Mark F

20
Deb wrote:...Zoller?s bone fide newsletter Nuntius, sent out personally by him and dated 19 October, did predict presidential change as one of his conclusions. In his ?opinions? he states:

"I just recently said to an audience of 20 people that I expected George Bush to remain in office as a result of the Election. After looking more closely at the figures presented here, I now think that Kerry may win. If, however, the current administration succeeds in capturing Bin Ladden before the Election, Bush will be a shoe-in."
Thank you for that further information, Deb. The newsletter I referred to above was the one from New Library, which I did not know is now unaffiliated with Mr. Zoller. The prediction that he made in Nuntius sounds more plausible, especially since though Bin Laden wasn't captured, he did make an appearance via videotape.

21
Well, Granny, here in MA today so many people were nearly in mourning. I think Granny however that I do understand why people voted for Bush, and my conclusions do not sit very well with me.

I also looked and looked at the charts and still can't see Bush winning. Maybe we should be looking at Karl Rove's chart. :wink:
Debra

22
I would suspect that Massechuessans (is that a word?) would be in especial Mourning. I've been looking at several charts over the last couple days adn I'm still a bit kerflummuxxed because Kerry's charts look the best, I wonder if NOT winning the election is Winning for him? as in, perhaps there is something coming up that would be desasterous for him had he been in office? or if the other predictions of a December win are correct or? Waiting to find out will be very interesting. though I must say waiting isn't something I do well, which is why I look at devining instruments, like astrology. ;-)

If I hear of anything more on the subject I'll try to get back to you with it.
and I still dont get anyone voting for Bush (well except his family, but wait, he and Kerry are related... my sister is related to them both by marriage as well, and she sure as heck didnt' vote for bush)

Granny

23
I found Mark's comments interesting. I don?t think I?ve ever heard more than one astrologer admit to liking Bush and I recall being at the AA conference in 2003 where one of the mundane talks became full of tension at the mention of his name. It may be that Bush stands for ?middle America? much more than astrologers are prepared to admit, (and that astrologers, as a group, are drawn from people who are used to living on the fringes of society?s approval). Were all these people who were predicting success for Kelly being fuelled by an astrological environment that was constantly reinforcing what they wanted to see?

We?ve had discussions on this forum for the last year and a half where we?ve seen the astrological difficulties and strains that have been piled on Bush (and Blair), and we?ve wondered whether they would be able to withstand the pressure. And then we?ve witnessed that pressure build up and attack them in real life just as we?d expect. But they didn?t fall, and they say that what doesn?t kill you makes you stronger. I?m surprised that everyone seems amazed Kerry didn?t win; for one thing his chart doesn?t resonate to the USA chart in the way that Bush?s does ? Bush seems to have built all his strengths on individualising the USA?s Cancerian Sun, with issues about nationalism, family values and traditional morality.

I quite like what you say Mark about not seeing the point of making such predictions. The irony is that to make any kind of rational assessment of mundane influences we have to be impassionate about what we?re looking at, and yet, if we?re really impassionate, most of us feel we have better things to do than to try to predict in advance something that?s going to happen anyway without our influence. But it?s not a pointless exercise; I?ve learned quite a lot about astrology by observing mundane events (that perhaps without the astrological angle I wouldn?t have given much thought to). The only thing that concerns me is when astrologers use astrology to lean people towards their own political opinions. Besides Sian?s post above, I?ve only read one prediction concerning the election, (which was wrong), and in that the word ?Bush? could easily have been replaced by the phrase ?anti-christ? without lowering the tone of the content. I much preferred Sian?s approach ? she illuminated the chart with her reasoning, but admitted that there were some factors she found hard to make sense of. She also admitted her bias, without dwelling on the reasons for it, which allows us to account for that and take it out of the equation. A chart is opened up for us to explore and learn from, especially now we have the benefit of hindsight. Most astrologers don?t admit their bias, and many are probably not aware of how influential it?s become in their astrological judgement. Now if someone has said ?I personally favour Bush but the astrological factors supporting Kerry are far more prominent?, I would be concerned, but as far as I can tell that hasn?t happened anywhere.

24
Now if someone has said ?I personally favour Bush but the astrological factors supporting Kerry are far more prominent?, I would be concerned, but as far as I can tell that hasn?t happened anywhere.
Two or so issues ago in The Mountain Astrologer, Lee Lehman did just that. She predicted a Bush win and admitted her preference for John Kerry. I don't recall the issue and it might have been in the section that is usually inserted in the issues sent to subscribers (Its Called Mercury Direct I think). I don't read the magazine often, and I only have one or two issues I'll look for it later today or tomorrow. Perhaps someone else can find it.

Kudos to Ms Lehman.

Let us tradtionalists also remember that William Lilly himself was a "leftist (although the term did not exist in the 17th century)." John Frawley once jokingly referred to him as "Lilly the Pink." He supported Parliament during the English Civil War, but managed to make a few pretty good predictions during that time. In other words, he kept his biases, for the most part, out of the astrology (but not out of his side comments). It can be done.

Tom

PS During the campaign George Bush was actually called the "anti-Christ" by opponents. His opponents generally consider themselves to be "tolerant" of different points of view.

25
Yes, I got it wrong! :-sk And, yes, I think it did have something to do with my own political biases

I was interested by, and in agreement with, Mark F's comments
And I think it's better to use astrology to find ways to help yourself in your own life
and
I am increasingly seeing astrology as a spiritual tool and predicting elections is not part of my path
As I say, I do agree with these comments. However, what I would say is that, for me, looking at Mundane charts, horaries, any form of astrological chart that has a verifiable outcome is extremely interesting. Because there is an outcome you can test your own knowledge and ability to work with astrology, there is 'evidence' that you were successful in getting to the essential 'meaning' of the chart. This relates back to my point of being biased - if we can be biased in something like a presidential election chart which isn't absolutely of critical importance to us then imagine how biased it is possible to be with our own natal charts, or horaries or events that do link personally to our lives. I think, therefore, that by practising our art on any charts that inspire us at any level and especially where our judgement can be tested that it is always useful to take the chance to see what we can get from the chart.

In this manner, when we know what happened, we can see where we went wrong and work out ways of avoiding that in the future...... and if we are working with charts for our own personal development (particularly our spiritual development) then surely we want to see what the chart is telling us, rather than what we think we want to see. I think that if we want to use astrology for our own guidance and development we need to see what the astrology is saying to us, rather than trying to make it fit our own ideas of what we think is right, and I can't think of any other way of doing this other than 'testing' ourselves with charts that have some kind of outcome.

I don't know if this makes sense, or if the meaning of what I am trying to express is clear - I hope so! :D

Lee Lehman's Prediction

26
All right I found it. The Mountain Astrologer Issue No. 115 June/July 2004, page 69. " But it (i.e., the method she used-tc) is still pretty good. It doesn't predict the person, it predicts the party. And unfortunately, it predicts the Republican Party for 2004."

The word "unfortunately" is the giveaway. The other astrologer she was interviewed with is Dennis Harness, a Vedic astrologer. He agreed with Lehman's prediction.

Ms Lehman uses a derivitive of Bernadette Brady's successful system of picking winners in football matches. And this was based on Lilly's beseigement techniques. This is interesting because neither sporting contests nor election campaigns resemble a castle beseigement. But it is results that count, and Ms Brady was very successful with her football predictions, and Lehman was objective enough to call the race for a candidate she did not favor.

Lehman mentioned that she likes the Electoral College vote chart., but she also likes a chart cast for midnight on election day for Washington DC. Her two comments are near contradictory, but I think are worthwhile to pass along.

1) "I came to the conclusion that the best results were achieved with the midnight chart on election day in Washigton DC."

2) "One thing that became obvious to me when working with the various charts is that the Electoral College vote chart is actually a good chart. I haven't gone through them all because, frankly, I find it too depressing."

I have no idea why she finds it depressing, but she is the first astrologer I've come across that even thought of using the Electoral College chart. If it works, why would that be depressing? It's a pretty good article for political junkies.

Tom

27
As I say, I do agree with these comments. However, what I would say is that, for me, looking at Mundane charts, horaries, any form of astrological chart that has a verifiable outcome is extremely interesting.
You know I actually agree with that. While I wouldn't ask a question about an election myself, it is interesting to read a chart after somene else has presented say an even chart, or a candidate's progressed chart. Just like at first I saw people doing all these charts on celebrities, my first reaction was "Who cares about Michael Jackson?" Then I realized that it's great practice for learning.

It might be interesting to look back at the disputed 2000 election, or maybe to the 1980 election when Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter in a landlslide. I don't think there seems to be agreement in this forum as to what approach to take. Even for elctions in the future, horary doesn't seem to be right because chances are that we aren't the first person to ask the question. (What did Lilly use for his political predictions?) And an event chart would he hard to use given that elections by their nature happen over a huge stretch of terrain. So maybe be default the best way is comparing progressed natal charts, or as Deb suggested comparing a candidate's chart with a nations chart. But wouldn't we also want to prgress America's national chart from 1776 up to 2004 too?
Mark F