I’ve noticed quite a few astrologers based their predictions for the US election on the astrology of the day, 6th November. I started wondering a few months ago how valid that is. If the election came out of nowhere, so to speak, like someone being born, then the chart for the day would say everything.
But it doesn’t come out of nowhere, like a new being. It is about 2 people we have come to know only too well, and it is about wider political currents that have been developing for years.
So I came to think no, the chart for the election day only gives a flavour of the election. And if it is too close to call, then that minor influence of the day may tip it one way or the other. That is what happened with Bush vs Gore. It was too close to call, so the Mercury retrograde influence on the day made a difference, and the side that eventually lost naturally felt that the election had been stolen from them.
I’ve been saying all along it would be Obama, and my astrological reason is this: if a leader is initially elected under strong outer planet transits, then he or she will usually remain in power until those transits are over. Neptune or Pluto has given that person the power to become leader, and they will tend to stay as leader until Neptune or Pluto leave the stage. This is what happened, for example, with Thatcher and Blair in the UK.
Obama was elected under Neptune squaring his MC. For the next 3-4 years Neptune will be hard-aspecting his natal Moon square Pluto. Then that will be that. Romney was at the end of a major Neptune transit – to his Asc – with none to follow. So Neptune took him as far as being a Presidential candidate, then dropped him.
If both or neither of them had enduring major transits, then it’s maybe worth taking more notice of the chart for the election day.
As ever with astrology, it’s best (1) to keep it simple, so you remain connected to the symbolism and (2) start with the bigger picture and then view particular moments – like the chart for the election day – in that context.