Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Conventionally Speaking

"Hot time in the old town of Philly in July?"
by: Dave Lindorff. The piece was also carried by The Smirking Chimp yesterday, with comments added.

If things go well for Sanders, and he even comes close in pledged delegates by winning handily in most of the remaining primaries, Clinton will be seen to be winning only based on having done exceedingly well only in the “front-loaded” southern states which neither she nor Sanders stand a chance of winning in the general election, making those delegates’ votes really marginal if not meaningless. At that point it would be fair, as the Sanders campaign plans to do, to press the unpledged so-called superdelegates -- party hacks, elected officials and big Democratic donors -- to reconsider earlier pre-primary pledges to back Clinton. If enough of those superdelegates were to follow calls to vote the way their states’ primary voters voted, it could tip the delegate balance to Sanders.

Meanwhile, if they do not do that, Philadelphia, the site of the July Democratic Convention beginning on July 25, could be a scene of chaos and mayhem reminiscent of the 1968 convention in Chicago, which featured riots both on the convention floor and in the streets of Chicago, as masses of peace activists and backers of anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy protested the railroading of pro-war candidate Hubert Humphrey. A similar thing could easily develop in Philadelphia if Sanders backers feel that their candidate and they themselves are being robbed by party leaders of a victory they feel they’ve won.
After reading the full piece, pulling out my 20th and 21st century ephemerides I checked to see whether any astrological similarities stood out for dates of 1968 and 2016 Democratic Conventions. The only similarity, degree-wise, I noted were degrees close to 24 Aries.

In late August 1968, time of the Democratic convention, Saturn was at 25 Aries, in July 2016 Uranus will be at 24 Aries.

In August 1968 Saturn at 25 Aries and and Neptune in Scorpio were in scratchy quincunx aspect, and Uranus and Pluto at 28 and 22 Virgo formed quincunxes to Saturn also.

In 2016 Uranus from 24 Aries will make an uncomfortable quincunx to Mars in Scorpio, while Jupiter from 21 Virgo will also be in quincunx aspect to Uranus.

Dang! Eyes and brain have crossed in trying to compare these placements via ephemerides - may as well post a chart for middle date of both conventions, set for 12 noon.

28 August 1968 Chicago

26 July 2016 Philadelphia

Well, just from the chart formations, visually, I'd say 2016's convention ain't gonna be a lot like that of 1968!

This is interesting though! In 2016 Uranus (the rebel, the unexpected) at the apex of a Yod involving 2 quincux aspects from Jupiter (excess, expansion) and Mars (energy, aggression) in sextile. In 1968 Saturn (law, status quo, the establishment) was at the apex of a Yod involving sextile of Neptune and a group of Virgo planets including Uranus.

I'd like to think that whereas 1968's concentrated and drastic events didn't, in the end, move much away from the status quo and establishment rule represented by Saturn; in 2016, with Uranus at the apex of a Yod, perhaps non-establishment, and mild revolutionary events might filter out more of the status quo, and filter in something new, even something mildly revolutionary.

Any thoughts?


mike said...

I don't have the time right this moment to investigate more than I have. I would compare the 2016 convention's natal chart with the founding of the Democratic Party, which I believe occurred on December 3, 1828. It's said that the party started with the election of Andrew Jackson. The Electoral College met on December 3rd. However, Jackson ran as a Democrat, so I'm not able to find a satisfactory date, other than December 3rd. Any ideas?

The most glaring astro-aspects are: 1828's Neptune on the 2016's Pluto...1828's Saturn on 2016's Sun...1828's Jupiter on 2016's Mars...1828's Mercury on 2016's Jupiter...1828's Sun on 2016's Saturn.

No time to compare the 1968 chart.

I find the 1968 date interesting, because that's when the notion of "super delegate" began:
"After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination. Some Democrats believed that these changes had unduly diminished the role of party leaders and elected officials, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. The party appointed a commission chaired by Jim Hunt, the then-Governor of North Carolina, to address this issue. In 1982, the Hunt Commission recommended and the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule that set aside some delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs.[6] Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were 30% of all delegates, but when it was finally implemented for the 1984 election, they were 14%. The number has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%."

Bernie can attempt to persuade, but the role of a super delegate is to prevent a "rogue" nominee from winning the crown. There are no restrictions upon them, though they are the cream-of-the-crop Democrats that are anticipated to hold the party together by their vote, should chaos erupt in the delegates obtained via state primaries' normal process.

mike (again) said...

P.S. - The 1968 election was the first presidential election post Uranus-Pluto conjunction...2016 election is the first presidential election post Uranus-Pluto square, with the caveat that the first of seven squares occurred prior to the 2012 election, and the other six squares after the 2012 election.

Twilight said...

mike + (again) ~ Thanks for taking time to add your thoughts - this is a many-pronged topic that is liable to veer off in several directions and has already sent me cross-eyed, to add to the allergy-ridden watery eyes I'm dealing with. ;-/

I tried to keep it simple by comparing just the two charts for dates of Dem conventions involved in Dave Lindorff's article. I understand your point though, that comparing those convention dates with a chart of the "birth" of the Democratic Party could be of interest. It's always tricky to find an accurate "birth" date for non-human entities.

A very quick Google brought up a fellow astrology blogger's post: Jude Cowell at "Stars Over Washington" blog has this from a 2014 posting (chart for Feb 17 1801):

She said:
"This horoscope is a different version for the Democratic Party than is usually found online and is posted here for future reference; please enlarge the image to read my scribbled notes if you may. Transits to and progressions of the chart will be discussed in a later post. jc. *Many thanks to Bill Sellers who kindly alerted me to this natal data gleaned from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson."

I can't uncross my eyes for long enough to sort out a sensible comparison, but immediately noted there are several degrees in the late 20s in that chart e.g. Sun 28 Aquarius, Moon 27 Aries, Mars 29 Taurus, Jupiter 25 Cancer. It's the mid to late-20 degrees coming up in all these charts that I find interesting.

I wish I had my full astro software so's I could do a 4 circle chart showing them all together. That would definitely aid the cross-eyed headache syndrome. I shall treat myself to a new, full, version when "my ship comes in". :-) In the meantime I'll keep taking a look at each in turn.

I hope Bernie does try to persuade the super-delegates to back him, should his wave of success continue. If they refused to do so, it'd clearly show how rigged the system actually is. If the party wants to choose its own leader, then why not simply do so without all this primary nonsense. That's how it works in the UK - the party chooses its leader who becomes Prime Minister if the party wins the General election.
It'd save a lot of money, better spent elsewhere, and a lot of time, better spent legislating. :-/

Anonymous said...

To add to the fun, you might enter asteroids 'Bernie' (7149) and 'Hillary' (3130) to the mix ;P

Twilight said...

Sabina ~ LOL! Ah well, at least Bernie is willing numerically asteroid-wise ! ;-)

Twilight said...

Dang! I meant "winning" not "willing" %-/

mike (again) said...

Origin of the Democratic Party is fogged-over by Neptune...LOL.

"The term "Democratic-Republican" is used especially by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians typically use the title "Republican Party". The party adopted the label Democratic-Republican in 1798. It was the second political party in the United States, and was organized by then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and his friend James Madison in 1791–93, to oppose the Federalist Party run by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. The new party controlled the presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1825, during the First Party System. Starting about 1791 one faction in Congress, many of whom had been opposed to the new constitution, began calling themselves Republicans in the Second United States Congress. It splintered in 1824 into the Jacksonian movement (which became the Democratic Party in the 1830s) and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party)."

Here's the 1801 date:
"Hofstadter (1970) shows it took many years for the idea to take hold that having two parties is better than having one, or none. That transition was made possible by the successful passing of power in 1801 from one party to the other. Although Jefferson systematically identified Federalist army officers and officeholders, he was blocked from removing all of them by protests from republicans."

Here's the transition from First Party System to Second Party System and the 1828 date:
"Historians and political scientists use the phrase Second Party System as a term of periodization to designate the political party system operating in the United States from about 1828 to 1854, after the First Party System ended. The system was characterized by rapidly rising levels of voter interest, beginning in 1828, as demonstrated by Election Day turnouts, rallies, partisan newspapers, and high degrees of personal loyalty to parties.

Two major parties dominated the political landscape: the Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, assembled by Henry Clay from the National Republicans and from other opponents of Jackson."

Cafe uses May 13, 1792:

This sites slideshow indicates Democratic Party started in 1828:

This timeline chart indicates 1828:

My quick review of birth date for DNC would favor December 3, 1828. Based on that TOB and the transits you provide for "26 July 2016 Philadelphia" would indicate major changes...most concerning would be the conjunctions I provided earlier:
"The most glaring astro-aspects are: 1828's Neptune on the 2016's Pluto...1828's Saturn on 2016's Sun...1828's Jupiter on 2016's Mars...1828's Mercury on 2016's Jupiter...1828's Sun on 2016's Saturn." The Sun-Saturn reversal positions are of most interest.

Regardless of origin for the Democratic Party's birth, I think the 1968 comparison to 2016 is best viewed as a Uranus-Pluto phenomenon, with current transits considered. I do believe that there is tremendous potential for the RNC to have an explosive meeting and it's supported astrologically [here's one of several articles on the net: http://edtamplin.com/worldpredictions_2016.htm scroll-down to "Republican Reformation"}.

Twilight said...

mike (again) ~ Not sure what we can make of any of it really, but interesting to investigate. Thanks for the additional information. It'd make sense for there to be links from any and all Conventions to the party's "natal" chart. Saturn, representing the law and ruling bodies would be a key player too. No doubt Uranus-Pluto is at work 1968/2016, yes.

I doubt the Democratic Convention this year will encounter outright chaos, maybe some grounds for complaint, dealt with in such a way as to placate Bernie supporters, temporarily, should his campaign lose the strength of its current positive wave - which still has an outside chance to sweep him to possible nomination. Things could get iffy if that happened and super-delegates refused to be swayed in his direction - THEN we should expect trouble.

The Republican Convention - different matter - they're already expecting some kind of trouble. I'm not inclined to look at dates and charts in relation to that though!
I have a funny feeling Trump may be looking for a way to exit without losing face.