Barack Obama has provided the most recent gaffe on the campaign trail with his comments on April 11 that small town Pennsylvania voters were bitter, religious, gun-toting xenophobes. Both Hillary and John McCain have suggested that the remarks are a sign that Obama is arrogant, elitist and out of touch with American reality.
This fits with my April 2 prediction that Hillary would experience a small boost from an intensification of the campaign at this time:
"For the next few weeks, I think her campaign will continue to be regarded as a long shot without any real chance of winning. There will be more little points scored along the way on both sides of course. Look for an intensification of the sniping and mud-slinging on both sides around April 11th. I think Hillary will gain a small advantage from that phase."
Although it is debatable if the campaign has actually become dirtier, there's no doubt that Hillary has scored some points over this, and the remarks were made on April 11th, right on schedule. This occurred as transiting Mars fell under the aspect the natal Rahu in both the campaign charts. Since the campaigns were launched just a few weeks from each other, the nodes are less than a degree apart. In Obama's case, the proximity of the Mars to his campaign chart's IC makes it worse for him. Also Sun, Mercury and Venus are transiting through Pisces the Obama campaign's 12th house which is a weakening effect, while they are moving through Hillary's second house which is more positive for communicating since the second house rules speech.
This gaffe gives Hillary some potentially useful talking points against Obama in the upcoming debate on the 16th. I am still predicting that she will peform much better than Obama there. If this 'elitist' label starts to stick to Obama, then it will likely give Hillary the boost her campaign needs to win Pennsylvania by at least 10 points. While the astrology favours Hillary in PA (60-40!), I was still having difficult seeing how it would actually happen in reality. Now with Obama's "bitter" comments, one can see how Hillary can gain the strategic advantage and storm to victory on the 22nd.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
More congrats in order for your accuracy - to the day, Chris!
It's becoming ever clearer to me why I've had this odd gut feeling about Barack Obama from the start.
Tiny almost imperceptible things triggered a mistrust, much as I tried to ignore them at first. If elitist he is, then this must have been just under the surface all the time -body language, tiny remarks etc. Maybe I was picking them up without realising it. elitism is a pet dislike of mine.
There's something else bubbling under in Puerto Rico just now which, though it could be untrue, will still harm him should it spread to any extent on the mainland.
Here
http://savagepolitics.com/?p=274
Twilight,
Thanks for sharing. That does all seem improbable (read the article), but it is interesting, nevertheless. I agree with the feelings you have had and still have. I have the same ones. I have often questioned why I have never heard the music of this pied piper when others have. And we all know what happened to those mice that did.
Thanks again to Chris!!!! For me, your commentaries are adding to the suspense and excitement of this election!
Hi Chris, Everyone,
What do you make of this?
Al Gore and Jimmy Carter Teaming Up to Force Clinton Out
My gut tells me if Hillary is forced out now by Al Gore, Obama will lose against McCain in the fall. But, I am not sure.
Seems undemocratic to me, considering that they're only separated by 711,000 votes of the 26 million votes cast, with 10 more primaries to go, and the following fact:
Of Sen. Obama's 711,000 popular-vote lead, 650,000 -- or more than 90% of the total margin -- comes from Sen. Obama's home state of Illinois, with 429,000 of that lead coming from his home base of Cook County.
That margin in Cook County represents almost 60% of Obama's total lead nationwide. Interestingly, Sen. Obama's 429,000-vote margin in Cook County alone is larger than the winning margin of either candidate in any state.
Chris, any thoughts on what an Al Gore intervention would mean or if it's even foreseeable at this point?
I also read on Bill O'Rielly's post, earlier this month, at one point that Hillary, as well as, some in the Republican circle had some potentially damaging information about Obama which has not yet been brought to light, for whatever reason. I can't find a reference to that article however, it seems as though it's been removed.
This could all just be speculation at this point, but nonetheless interesting as well as exciting to watch unfold.
Thanks!
blazer -- thanks for the Gore story. Personally, I don't think it's going to happen. If it did, obviously it would be a huge blow to HRC but even there, maybe not what some people think. While Gore enjoys this special exalted status the Democratic party, I think much of it has diffused as the years have rolled on. He's become more of a one-issue former politician. Certainly, his views matter to a lot of Democrats, but I think Hillary and her supporters could make a case for ignoring him, too. He's so totally into climate change, he's almost (and I stress almost) become a political liability. They can trot him out as a nice, well-intentioned guy, but politically, I think he's lost the plot a bit.
From a first look at his chart, I think it's possible that he's active around Apr 25 -- in the days following PA. Hard to know if he's public though, but it's certainly possible. And I can't tell if it's an endorsement of Obama though. Will have to look at it more.
Sorry, the link was messed up for some reason. Here's the actual link:
Gore and Carter Team Up Against Clinton
Thanks!
Hi Chris,
I've observed your blog and your predictions in the past and just wanted to point out an observation.
The one thing that is very obvious is that you are a very passionate support of Hillary, which is perfectly fine. It seems to me that it is an overriding factor in your analysis - in the sense that you you look at all events to justify how they would justify her chance at winning the nomination.
I'd like to quote Mr. Ullal Chakrapani, a leading scholar in vedic astrology "An astrologer must have an unbiased mind and judge only the influence of the planets, he must not judge the person in making predictions". He was amongst the few who predicted Bush beating Kerry last election.
In the end, Hillary may win this presidency - who knows, but I think that this flaw might skew some of your future predictions. Again, just a personal observation.
Hi Mahesh,
Doesn't look like Mr. Ullal Chakrapani was unbiased, at least not according to his campaign contribution to the RNC in 2003:
Campaign Contributions
In a previous post, Chris conceded that he has gotten somethings wrong, and revisited some of his predictions, but no astrologer can be right all of the time.
Mahesh,
Thanks for your comments. I agree the astrologer needs to be as unbiased as possible. For the record, I also predicted Bush over Kerry (see article on my MVA site which was published in Express Star Teller magazine) despite having no particular fondness for Bush.
While I do admit to preferring Clinton to Obama, I hope that my analysis is based on my reading of the charts rather than wish-fulfillment. But it's a thin line to be sure.
As for my commentary on the campaign goes, I have been teleological at various points, but only in so far as it bears on the correctness of my predictions. Where I have made mistakes I have tried to own up to them and re-assess my assumptions.
Mahesh,
What is Mr. Ullal Chakrapani saying for this election? Also, does anybody know what campaign he is contributing to this time?
It was never really my sense that Chris was in the tank for Hillary, although I did get a later idea that he did have a preference when he came right out and said it. The whole reason I have follow Chris's commentaries is because of his general accuracy and, although Hillary-friendly, isn't willing to compromise his own predictions with his leanings toward Hillary. I have been disappointed on a number of occasions when I wanted to hear something positive for Hillary and Chris was not able to provide that because of what he saw in the charts. You have to give it to him, Mahesh, he has been better than most astrolgers out there.
mahesh - I don't iknow what the campaign Bush/Kerry was like, because I came to the USA just at the end of it. I suspect though that this campaign has been much, much longer, with many more twists and turns, and involves two "special" candidates, an African American and a female.
I think it must have been much harder to assess and forecast in these circumstances, and I think chris has consistently been far more accurate than most, if any astrologers have even been brave enough to follow events so closely with tight predictions such as Chris has made, and been accurate.
Which candidate Chris prefers is really irrelevant if his predictions turn out to be largely correct.
This is especially for "twilight".
Someone actually had the guts to say, "hey, the emporer has no clothes!!" Perhaps Obamamania is finally wearing thin.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/a_living_lie.html
this is really scandalous. these accusations wont fly very well with the conservative voting block. I honestly don't feel that a person's private life is anyones business but you have to ask was he married at the time? does this sound like a person who ever took the idea of elected office seriously? Being a teenager and experimenting is one thing but having a druggy sex tryst while in public service is a serious allegation.
Wow, that got a lot of responses. I merely stated my observations of your candidate preference from what I had read Chris, - I did not question your past predictions. My comment came more from reading a lot of astrologers enthusiastically predicting a Kerry win in 2004 because they (like many others)desperately wanted him to win. I take your word on keeping an unbiased view.
Personally, I have no preference amongst the three candidates and admit to being unimpressed with all of them. I do believe that whoever wins will have the toughest job ahead irrespective of their individual campaign promises- an Iraq war that we realistically can't completely withdraw from for at least a year, a sub- prime mortgage, housing and credit crisis that will take at least 2-3 years to heal, a recession and healing a deeply divided nation.
I had high hopes for the Dem candidates but both Clinton and Obama have put me off badly the last few months. Hopefully things will turn in the right direction.
Mahesh,
I understand you what you were saying. It was just a question and in no way an accusation. It seems pretty clear you were just taking a pause to think out something.
By the way, do you know who Ullal Chakrapani is predicting to win the election?
Mahesh,
No worries. You asked a fair question. And I totally agree with you about how astrologers dealt with the Bush-Kerry election. It was an embarrassing episode for astrology as a whole. Since most astrologers in the West lean to the left, it wasn't too surprising to find that perhaps 80-90% of them were calling a Kerry win. I think most Indian astrologers were also predicting Kerry.
I remember how crazy it was that I often had to almost apologize for my prediction of a Bush win to other astrologers and insist that I didn't actually like him or his policies, as if that was necessary.
I do agree with you that it is a little unseemly for astrologers to become cheerleaders. I've been up front with my bias here, but hopefully it doesn't degenerate into blind faith.
Chris,
You may or may not want to answer this in a commentary after the PA primary, but do you see any pitfall days for Clinton after the PA primary like the one you saw for Obama? Do you see any more for Obama on the horizon, too?
Thanks for the link getty1206.
Light is dawning in a few dark corners, at last!
Hi Chris!
It's my first time asking a question, but I've been following your blog for a long time. Most of your predictions have been really impressive. My question is: do you think there is a chance that Hillary and Obama will run together?
Thankies!
Chris, you were right on the mark about the 16th of April for Hillary...it was a very good night for her tonight in the debate.
With all the bias out there, it's hard to know who did well but my sense is that Obama was more under the gun by virtue of the gaffe-based questions. This has led many Obama supporters to criticize ABC. I think Hillary probably came out of the experience a little ahead. Although he leans right, David Brooks of the NYT makes some good points here.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/no-whining-about-the-media/index.html?hp
Well, it depends on whom you support I guess. I wasn't impressed by the debate format or the moderators as it took too long for them to get to the key issues. I don't think either candidate did particularly well or badly - don't think it will affect the polls.
Here's an article that gives a different impression on the debate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html?sid=ST2008041700060
I don't think that if Obama did so great, his supporters would be complaining and criticizing ABC...
It was a changing night for him because thus far he has been dealt with less scrutiny and pressure. How he performs under those circumstances is equally important if he is to assume the top job or represent the party in the general election.
At the very least, Hillary kept her support base and may even have swayed some independent voters with her foreign policy answers - which will no doubt be an important issue in Nov. Obama supporters are sticking with Obama no matter what happens until the nomination is decided and may be even beyond.
We'll know soon enough in 5 days or so.
The main ground of complaint flying around Obama blogs seems to be that the first half of the debate concntrated on "tabloid" type questions to the two candidates.
Most people interested in the elctions have watched several debates and speeches already and know where the candidates stand on main issues. I thought it a good thing to bring out some of what might be gossip, or worse, into the public forum. Better now than after nomination. The Republicans will do it to the nominee - this was a good practice session, I thought. I thought HRC held her own well, Obama not so well under fire.
So Chris proved right again. :-)
Good!
I think the Washington Post's line focused on the media role. While most acknowledged its departure from the norm, I think Twilight makes the point that we all know the issues and policies already. Symbolic positions matter, especially when the GOP has a say in actual election in the fall.
It's fairly clear that Hillary got a slight boost from Obama being on the defensive. Generally, he faired less well under pressure. This Politico.com summary is perhaps more representative.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9675.html
Hi Chris
The are concerns that Hillary being negative is not giving the necessary boost and instead is being counter productive (There was article on Time saying 3 SD's from Pennsylvania are shifting to Obama from Hillary).
How do you see the negativity from the Charts of the candidates
Chris
Dean has called for the Super Delegates to make a decision Now. Unless Hillary has a big win in PA looks like she may not go beyond April? DO you see anything happening in April that could end this Race?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/17/dean-i-need-a-decision-now/
It's pretty chaotic right now. I watched the debate, which was a clear win for Hillary, but she's not the front runner. Look at what Obama said below (this was at the debate, in front of millions of people):
George Stephanopoulos, said to Obama, "A gentleman named William Ayers, part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s, they bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for it, and in fact on 9/11 he was quoted in the New York Times saying, 'I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.' An early organizing meeting for your state Senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain the relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem to be so close to a terrorist like this."
OBAMA (comparing his relationship to a terrorist with his relationship with a conservative Republican): "This is guy who lives in my neighborhood who was, uh, a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from, he's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis, uh, and the notion that somehow, uh, as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old, uh, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George. The fact is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, uh, who, during his campaign, once said that it, uh, might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who, uh, carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's, uh, statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those, either."
Right now, Obama is damaged goods, if he wins, democrats are sure to lose against John McCain. But, if Hillary can close the deal in PA by scoring a double-digit win then it's effectively over for Obama.
FYI...Senator Obama recently posted a copy of his birth certificate on his website. This document provides a birth time of 7:24 p.m., different than the 1:07 p.m. birthtime astrologers previously believed to be correct.
Post a Comment