Presidential Pollsters or Astrology: Which is More Reliable?

Arianna Huffington is not big on pollsters. Today Huffington Post launched a new feature, Huffpollstrology.

It will keep you up to date on the latest poll results, along with the candidates' latest horoscope predictions, the latest online political betting lines, and the latest weather forecasts for key primary states (and we know how accurate those often turn out to be!). Pollstrology is a great way to see who is hot and who is not -- and which candidates' stars say they might be lucky in voter love today.

I know the astrology part is somewhat tongue- in- cheek, but let's take it a step further anyway. HuffPo gives us the birthdates of the three top Dems, but we need more. We need birth times so we can examine their entire charts. We need rising signs, Moon and Venus placement, a picture of what planets are in their 10th houses. Thanks to Google, the results are below:

• Here's Hillary's Chart. The astrologer who posted it includes his or her interpretation.

• Here's Obama's chart, found on another astrology blog, and that writer's assessment.

• Here's John Edwards' birthchart, found on yet another astrologer's blog.

Given the haphazard results of our pollsters these days, astrological analysis may be just as reliable. If you aren't an astrologer and need some tips for interpreting, here's one astrologer's suggestions.

As for what weight to give these astrological portraits and predictions, as I once wrote in a court brief when arguing that forensic document (handwriting) experts are no more reliable than astrologers:

Mere training and experience is not a basis for establishing reliability. Many astrologers undergo years of training and expertise in the calculation and evaluation of natal charts, the placement and movement of planets through the twelve planetary houses of the Zodiac, and the calculation and comparison of the degree of angles made by one planet in relation to another in a chart. This discipline involves complex mathematical calculations and an understanding of the nature of the planets in the solar system as taught by a discipline that has been in existence for thousands of years. Yet, the specialized training, experience and expertise that is fundamental to the practice of astrology do not make it reliable. Nor do they elevate astrology to “knowledge”.

That said, I think Arianna's Pollstrology may be as valid a predictor of the presidential nomination as any other. And a lot more fun.

[Jeralyn Merritt blogs daily at TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime.]

Follow Jeralyn Merritt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TalkLeft

Comments

[Scarabus]

If Huff-Po is not "into" polls, then why do so many headlines on Huff-Po focus on polls"

[Pollstar]

Mercury square Neptune can either be indicative of someone who inadvertently slips into dishonesty, or an eloquent and poetic orator.

Caroline Kennedy's endorsement is intriguing. Obama was born a little more than 6 months into JFK's 1st term, and 8 months after JFKjr. was born

His Jupiter/Saturn conjunction suggests that he may be the one in 2020.

I just found this interesting commentary on Pluto in Capricorn here:
http://www.karmicrelief.com/WUArchive2007/WF012408.htm

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Presidential Pollsters or Astrology: Which is More Reliable? - Well if you count the 'undecided's', I'm going with the pollsters, if not, the astrologers probably have the upper hand.

[mercurialsort]

Regarding the aspects to Hillary's mercury, I think it gives her great depth, an ability to get to the bottom of things, and an ability to work within the system of law, deeply and powerfully.
Regarding the mercury-neptune aspect in Obama's chart, it does reflect great imagination, idealism, and inspiration in his communication, but is subject to questioning himself as new information becomes available (especially with his moon in gemini).
As Oriana points out, the discussion about the placements of mercury is just one piece of the puzzle. I also agree with astrologue that using actual professional astrologers could greatly deepen and broaden comparative discussions.
As far as the Huff Post's assertion that the polls are unreliable and that they might just as well use astrology, is quite a slap at astrological professionals whose insight is often nothing short of profound. The shallow sun sign interpretations found in columns and newspapers is more revealing of the shallowness of newspapers than of astrology.

[johntownley]

There's a complete wrap on all the candidates written in October with a standing prediction of Hillary-Romney...it uses composite charts with the USA, very interesting...at: http://www.astrologysoftware.com/community/sessions/getarticle.asp?ID=216&orig=

[twohearts]

RnR:
There is no way to comment on anything in Hillary's 10th house.....this chart is NOT based on her time of birth: it shows a sun chart (the sun sign, Scorpio, is on the ascendant.)
I used to have her chart - I do remember Pisces on the midheaven, which could mean that people don't know what to make of her, and also that she may be a dreamer and an inspired person.

In any case, I don't trust any political blog to do a fair assessment of any candidate. I think that HuffPo (or Arianna) doesn't like Hillary at all, and is generally subverting anything positive about her.
(btw, I support Edwards)

[Phasis]

Speaking of astrology on Huffpo, I am mystified by the racist, sexist and homophobic astro claptrap recently published by Michael Lutin on this blog.

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-lutin/pluto-capricorn-and-the-_b_82535.html :

"Hillary can't help it. She's an assertive female. (That's why Bill married her. He likes to get slapped around once in a while.) She is not the frilly-I-enjoy-being- a-girl type of woman. She's more like a girl's gym teacher; just fit her out with a whistle and a pair of sneakers and she'd be ready to dribble a basketball. That image makes it easy for her detractors to cast aspersions on her sexuality."

Now, I don't care what one thinks of Hillary as a candidate, but this is neither good astrology or constructive political commentary. I don't know of any DEMOCRATIC detractors who have cast aspersions on Hillary's sexuality. No, that is the kind of thing that the Rush Limbaughs of the world fixate on.

Another example re Obama http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-lutin/pluto-capricorn-and-the-_b_82535.html:

"He does honestly see himself as heroic as a firefighter waving to a street crowd before rushing into a burning building to save a baby. . . . now sincerely believes he has to save everybody. That's a lonely burden to carry, but it sometimes fosters a grandiosity that precedes a plunge.

Back in Las Vegas he was honest when mentioned that he's absent-minded and would lose any piece of paper given to him any more than five minutes before he needed it. Nobody is completely truthful, however, because he might have also said, Can't you see that we're royalty? We leave leave the details and menial work to underlings.""

Get it: Ambitious woman, a b*tch on wheels, and an ambitious black man is uppity.

Shame on you Mikey and Huffpo. This is not astrology; it is hate-speech.

[LeonBNJ]

Astrology is nothing by very broad and general thoughts of what might happen. Often I find they have nothing to do with real life, it is a real blind crap shoot that once in a while does seem to be what actually happens. That is why it is used in this formula, as it is as accurate as many polls today.
Polls have become less accurate today as more people (like me) generally refuse to answer such questions over the phone, a good cross section of people is extremely difficult to reach by phone as not home or don't have home phones any more and a number of other factors.

[SamEllison]

Something we can equate with the Reagan years.

[astrologue]

It would be nice if Huffpollastrology utilized actual astrologers, or more advanced astrological commentary rather than just simple Sun-sign stuff. It would probably draw a wider audience, and of course it would much more accurate.

[Oriana]

Please everyone, understand that astrology
is part science, part art. You simply can't
take an aspect like mercury square neptune etc.
and isolate it from the rest of the chart. Nothing stands alone, every aspect is inter-related.
Also, please understand that a difficult aspect in an unevolved chart might forecast huge problems, and manifest challenges and creative solutions in an evolved chart. The candidates, even the ones I would never vote for, deserve more than this quickie and dangerous analysis. It's sort of like getting a 10 minute physical checkup with a terminal diagnosis, it just doesn't work.

[RnR]

Look! Obama has Mercury square Neptune. Ask an astrologer the significance of that.

Neither Edwards nor Clinton have that aspect in their charts.