Houck's prediction

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/14/00 4:36:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

ckevill writes:

 

<< In the end, I side with Houck on who will be elected (Bush) only because he

is rarely wrong in predicting election outcomes and he's got way more

experience than I have. >>

 

Chris, could you say more about Houck's prediction? I know a few years back

he stated that the party in power did not change in years when the outer

planets did not change signs, sidereal signs of course. I think by outer

planets he was speaking of the modern ones, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, which

do not change signs this year. By that criterion, Gore would be elected.

 

Lalia

[Guest guest]

Lalia:

 

><< In the end, I side with Houck on who will be elected (Bush) only

because he

> is rarely wrong in predicting election outcomes and he's got way more

> experience than I have. >>

>

>Chris, could you say more about Houck's prediction?

 

I don't know all the details. Perhaps it's best to go to his site

(richardhouck.com) and get the full story.

 

I know a few years back

>he stated that the party in power did not change in years when the outer

>planets did not change signs, sidereal signs of course. I think by outer

>planets he was speaking of the modern ones, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, which

>do not change signs this year. By that criterion, Gore would be elected.

>

 

Interesting. I hadn't heard of this. I guess he's superseding his own

rules now, because he's predicting Bush. And with Gore now in the lead, it

makes you wonder what is going to happen to change the dynamic.

 

Chris

 

 

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Group -

 

In response to Lalia's comment about Rick Houck's statement below, I

decided to ask him personally. He suggested that I share my post with the

group as there seems to be such interest in the election right now, so I

will, as follows -

 

(DONNA)

 

Was Lalia's memory correct about your comment on outer planet changes

corresponding to party changes? And if it was, then aren't you going against

yourself by not sticking with your prior point?

 

(RICK)

 

Lalia's memory of my comment about outer planet changes being correlated to

party changes is essentially true (it probably came from commentary in my

sidereal ephemeris?), but it has more to do with the idea of a sea change

occurring in the INTENT of the electorate to change parties (i.e., Reagan

and Gingrich "revolutions," etc.). But I think the president's mere party

affiliation can shift back and forth IF their pitch to the electorate is

essentially the same (nibbling around the edges) and not revolutionary,

which this time they are since people are basically happy with the way

things are, and if there is no big impact at the congressional level. Note

that there really aren't that many outer sign changes that hit near

elections, but we do have more shifting back and forth than that. Secondly,

as I mentioned to you a long while back, ALL of the political scientists who

use mathematical formulas to forecast the election (formulas which have

always worked, at least retroactively) have said that the party in power

will remain in power for this election. So at great risk, my April Bush

forecast is going against that also. BTW, part of what has gone into my

thinking about the probabilities for change has been the long-range forecast

that sunspots (and solar flares?) are supposed to be hitting an 11-year

cyclic peak right around election month. These always disturb the

terrestrial atmosphere (perhaps the world's building gas crisis?), so I

figured these might be a decent proxy or substitute for outer planet sign

changes.

 

 

(DONNA)

 

So are you going to do a re-take in light of the fact that Lieberman has now

entered the picture and changed the whole mix of the soup? Or are you going

to stay with your original prediction?

 

I really can't risk a re-forecast without Lieberman's total chart, but I

have not yet seen a decent TOB for him. So I'm stuck in limbo even though,

as I have written earlier, his tertiary progressed Pluto station arriving

dead on election month is indeed one of the true Killer Indicators for

political triumph (as actually mentioned somewhere in my books, I think). I

posted the Lieberman Pluto Station comment to my web site a while back, and

well before that I posted my comments that it really strikes me that NEITHER

presidential candidate's chart has the traditional powerful KARMA to win -

as indicated by the lack of a single Killer Indicator. (Astrologers

generally don’t realize that there really is just ONE indicator for a

political win - just one; everything else is just confirmation and support.)

Thus I stated that one of the VP's charts is likely to contain the Killer

Indicator. Note that Gore was absolutely dead in the water, like a puppet

without its puppeteer, until the day he selected Lieberman. From that day

forward Gore's destiny took on oxygen and upward momentum. So it looks like

it's Lieberman's chart that's doing it. (He’s also single-handedly pulling

in massive amounts of money for the Democratic side.) Meanwhile, to

aggravate deduction even more, Lieberman is still running for the Senate in

Connecticut!

 

 

 

 

(Previous postings)

 

<< Lalia:

 

><< In the end, I side with Houck on who will be elected (Bush) only

because he

> is rarely wrong in predicting election outcomes and he's got way more

> experience than I have. >>

>

>Chris, could you say more about Houck's prediction?

 

I don't know all the details. Perhaps it's best to go to his site

(richardhouck.com) and get the full story.

 

I know a few years back

>he stated that the party in power did not change in years when the outer

>planets did not change signs, sidereal signs of course. I think by outer

>planets he was speaking of the modern ones, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto,

which

>do not change signs this year. By that criterion, Gore would be elected.

>

 

Interesting. I hadn't heard of this. I guess he's superseding his own

rules now, because he's predicting Bush. And with Gore now in the lead, it

makes you wonder what is going to happen to change the dynamic.

 

Chris

>>