Kamala Harris

[Jim Eshelman]

Kamala Harris accepted her party's nomination August 22, 2024, at 9:44:20 PM CDT (per an atomic clock) at The United Center in Chicago, 41N52'50" 87W40'27".

So... does this tell us anything about the accuracy of her birth time?

There's the one factor I keep watching - hinting at a slightly earlier birth time. Solar arc Ascendant last night at 0°32' Leo was 0°44 past its square to natal Jupiter. This feels more like a building aspect (though that, of course, presumes a successful outcome - that the energies are still strong in January). I don't think we can draw any conclusions from this at present.

Hert local solar arc and natal angles for Chicago add nothing.

Her SNQ shows promise, though: Calculated by Solar Fire, in what I think is a slightly incorrect way (relying on the length of the tropical year), progressed Ascendant is 3°34' Cancer, 10' from square her Moon and 0°00' from square her Sun. Progressed Moon squares MC within 0°04'. That's all in the "as good as it gets" category except that I think the calculation method is a bit off.

If (as I think is the case) secondary progressions are based on the length of the sidereal year, then her SNQ is calculated for December 19, 1964, 7:33:36 PM CDT and has Ascendant 2°54' Cancer, MC 15°56' Pisces. This puts Ascendant farther from natal Sun-Moon; worse yet, it suggests (for the perfect chart) that the birthtime be about two minutes later (which is unlikely in a carefully recorded time, and is opposite the suspicious that she was born a minute or two earlier). It this is the correct way to calculate progressions, we could settle for SNQ Ascendant being within 1° of natal Sun-Moon - certainly good enough - though not the 0°00' of the other calculation method. Furthermore, it says that if the birth time IS earlier than 9:28 PM, it surely isn't any more than two minutes earlier - to keep that SNQ Ascendant within partile orb.

Moving on to the SQ: The message is clear that it was an occasion of peak emotion (and perhaps more uncertainty than she showed). SQ MC was 0°52' Pisces, 32' from solar Neptune. Sure, the birth time could be as much as two minutes earlier to make it exact, though it's perfectly good the way it is. - Asc 21°30' Gemini is square transiting Moon and, as before, we couldn't move back more than two minutes of birth time and keep this aspect.


This leaves the PSSR. After years of not performing reliably, PSSRs have been doing pretty well using the mean flow of time (as with the SNQ and SQ) rather than apparent solar rate. By that calculation, her PSSR is calculated for 10/23/2023 3:38:45 AM CDT. This gives us several possibilities of angularities - quite a mix of things - and no real clear indication whether to keep the time or tip it. It's a good chart in any case.

17°04' Leo - PSSR EP-a
17°10' Leo - s Venus
19°01' Leo - r Uranus
19°45' Tau - PSSR MC
21°12'Leo - r Pluto
22°01' Leo - PSSR Asc
22°09' Aqu - t Saturn
22°49' Tau - t Jupiter
23°39' Leo - r Venus

If we accept the birth certificate time as exactly correct, this gives the following partile contacts:

PSSR EP-a = s Venus +0°02'
PSSR MC = t Uranus +0°44'
PSSR Asc = r Pluto +0°49', t Saturn -0°08', t Jupiter +48'

One doesn't want to screw with this too much. If we move back the birth time one or two minutes, most of this is kept - and much of it gets stronger - but moving back even one full minute costs the transiting Jupiter (and nothing gets rid of the transiting Saturn). I could be comfortable with any time very close to the birth certificate time, which might be exactly right; or, if not exactly right, we can't go more than one minute earlier.

For any other public figure, I wouldn't stress about this at all. For Kamala, that one minute makes the difference of her Ascendant sign and the duration and peaking time of her solar arc Asc-Jupiter aspect.

BTW, for those who care about such things, here is another minute difference in the one minute birth time difference:

3°24' Ari - Moon
3°29' Rim - Moon/Sun
3°34' Lib - Sun
3°55' Rim - Asc/MC 9:27 PM
4°10' Rim - Asc/MC 9:28 PM

[Jim Eshelman]

By the way... it's not often that we get crystal clear examples of Libra's original basic symbolism of the place of sunrise. And yet... did anyone else notice how often the convention speakers presented Kamala Harris in exactly those terms - new dawn, new day, daybreak... even drawing parallels (more in the press than at the convention) of Reagan's "morning in America."

Not since Libran Helen Reddy made famous the name Delta Dawn (prettiest woman you ever laid eyes on) do I recall getting my attention so drawn to this bit of zodiacal symbolism.

Also, I've said for over 40 years that the "airy" constellations - Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius - are distinctly attached to the future. This, of course, is at the heart of nearly all of Harris' campaign slogans. (Compare to Libra Hillary Clinton's "Building a Better Tomorrow," "Your Future is Her Fight," but also numerous Libran slogans about fairness and remaining connected such as the lead slogan, "Stronger Together.")

Sidereal Libra took decades to get more than a simple idea of what it was about. Sidereal astrology's founders didn't have most of these (though some of them were hinted at in Bradley's private notes). The real expression of the sunrise and futurism issues, the focus not only on the law but on social justice, the number of social activists in various forms and venues. Fagan (and, I think, Bradley) understood how important Saturn was to Libra, but never developed the idea of the strong swings between Venus and Saturn.

Throughout the convention, the portrayal - the selling, one might say - of Kamala Harris was almost entirely summarized in the polarity of her Libra Sun and Aries Moon. The Libra was easy: her career in law and as an agent of justice (plus the other themes mentioned above). Aries then appeared in her tough, unstoppable fighter elements in her earlier career and her readiness to stand with steely strength on the international field interacting (Libra-Aries) with world leaders and ready to serve as commander in chief of our military. These were easy parts of her character for the campaign to grab hold of and push, and yet the exact way they did it are right down the line of Libra + Aries.

But did the Ascendant have play? Usually this is the most superficial ("how you're dressed up") layer of someone's appearance but that does mean it often is a factor in how celebrities sell themselves and politicians are packaged. The problem is that Kamala's recorded birth time puts Gemini rising for less than a full minute before the recorded time. One minute earlier has the last minutes of Taurus rising. This rings entirely true (and remember that my wife has Sun rising in Taurus). The most personal elements repeated throughout four days about Harris described her repeatedly as loving, compassionate, empathetic, devoted to children (and able to talk to them respectfully at their level), how she is always in the kitchen and an amazing cook. Yes, a lot of these Venus-themed words might be Libran, though they aren't really Libran so much as Taurian. Even though I've been saying that I thought she probably had Taurus rising instead of Gemini (mostly from her physical build), I sat for a week listening to descriptions that seemed more Taurian than Libran and didn't put together than - oh - Ido think that probably she has Taurus rising.

I don't know if she really is like those Taurus descriptions. However, her packaging certainly includes a whole lot of that.

[Venus_Daily]

Well, she's definitely in the hot seat. Her campaign is 20 mill in debt, her husband just left her after he cheated on her, and she lost. I think it stings even more given thr candidate and how overwhelming the defeat was the universe literally said, nope@

[Jim Eshelman]

Marital trouble is all rumor. It may, of course, be true - I've been describing a deep personal relationship loss for her all year - but, to be clear, the rumors on X and elsewhere that they are separated/ing have no confirmation I can find.

I'm curious why you call this an "overwhelming defeat." Defeat, sure... but she lost by the narrowest margin of any presidential race in over a hundred years. It was a very slim margin.

[Jim Eshelman]

I'm curious why you call this an "overwhelming defeat." Defeat, sure... but she lost by the narrowest margin of any presidential race in over a hundred years. It was a very slim margin.

I need to correct my error: It's not the narrowest in the last century, though it is one of the narrowest. (Kennedy over Nixon was probably the slimmest, with Nixon over Humphrey and Carter over Ford next; or, actually, Gore over Bush, but it's hard to think how to measure "won by how much?" when it's a negative number.)

I'm recompiling the numbers and will be able to post them later.

(Added later.)

Code: Select all

Year	Winner	W Votes	Loser	L Votes	Difference
2024	Trump	77,237,942 	Harris	74,946,837 	2,291,105 
2020	Biden	81,283,501 	Trump	74,223,975 	7,059,526 
2016	Trump	62,984,828 	Clinton	65,853,514 	(2,868,686)
2012	Obama	65,915,795 	Romney	60,933,504 	4,982,291 
2008	Obama	69,485,385 	McCain	59,961,454 	9,523,931 
2004	Bush	62,040,610 	Kerry	59,028,444 	3,012,166 
2000	Bush	50,456,002 	Gore	50,999,897 	(543,895)
1996	Clinton	47,401,185 	Dole	39,197,469 	8,203,716 
1992	Clinton	44,909,889 	Bush	39,104,550 	5,805,339 
1988	Bush	48,886,597 	Dukakis	41,809,476 	7,077,121 
1984	Reagan	54,455,472 	Mondale	37,577,352 	16,878,120 
1980	Reagan	49,903,230 	Carter	35,481,115 	14,422,115 
1976	Carter	40,831,881 	Ford	39,148,634 	1,683,247 
1972	Nixon	47,168,710 	McGovern	29,173,222 	17,995,488 
1968	Nixon	31,783,783 	Humphrey	31,271,839 	511,944 
1964	Johnson	43,129,040 	Goldwater	27,175,754 	15,953,286 
1960	Kennedy	34,220,984 	Nixon	34,108,157 	112,827 
1956	Eisenhower	35,579,180 	Stevenson	26,028,028 	9,551,152 
1952	Eisenhower	34,075,529 	Stevenson	27,375,090 	6,700,439 
1948	Truman	24,178,347 	Dewey	21,991,292 	2,187,055 
1944	Roosevelt	25,612,916 	Dewey	22,017,929 	3,594,987 
1940	Roosevelt	27,313,945 	Willkie	22,347,744 	4,966,201 
1936	Roosevelt	27,747,636 	Landon	16,679,543 	11,068,093 
1932	Roosevelt	22,821,277 	Hoover	15,761,254 	7,060,023 
1928	Hoover	21,427,123 	Smith	15,015,464 	6,411,659 
1924	Coolidge	15,723,789 	Davis	8,386,242 	7,337,547 
1920	Harding	16,166,126 	Cox	9,140,256 	7,025,870 

[Ember Nyx (Mike V)]

I would agree that this was a resounding, overwhelming defeat. The margin was small, yes - but Trump won the popular vote, a feat widely regarded as impossible for a republican in the modern era. He won all of the swing states (granted, many of them trend together, but still, she didn’t pick up a single one). New Jersey, a reliable blue state, was so close to flipping it could turn into a swing state if this trend continues, which is disturbing to contemplate.

Democratic leadership needs to get the memo that over the last 12 years, they’re 1 out of 3 for beating the worst candidate in decades, and their narrow win was on the back of the immediacy of Covid mishandling. The candidates that they’ve been championing recently are not going to win.

[SteveS]

Mike V wrote:

The candidates that they’ve been championing recently are not going to win.

Agreed! I really didn’t know Kamala that well, but when I started paying attention how she ran her campaign and how the odds were changing against her, I felt the Dem party could be in big trouble. But I was still somewhat surprised how bad she lost. The entire media painted this election as going to be very close election but they missed it badly. I really feel now with hindsight Trump easily won because most voters felt the DOJ conducted a sham against Trump with its Lawfare against him. This Lawfare completely backfired on the Dem Party/Harris in a big way, IMO. I really think it will now take a few more Prez cycles for the Dem party to dig themselves out of a deep hole they now find themselves in, but who knows for sure—we are living in crazy interesting times.

[SteveS]

One other observation I want to make about this past Prez Election. I quit watching TV news many years ago, and now rely on observations/opinions made by podcast narrators on many different subjects including political news. I see this same shift happening across the World, and I think it is a positive change for the world at large. I think Legacy News is a dying News outlet, and most voters in the world see any Politician having to read a teleprompter to try and win an election will not get their vote.

[Jim Eshelman]

The entire media painted this election as going to be very close election but they missed it badly.

Did they? It was one of the skinniest margins of all times. Such estimates are always in terms of the popular vote. Trump received about two million more votes than Harris. In contrast, Trump lost to Biden by seven million votes and got almost three million fewer than Hillary Clinton. Obama beat Romney by five million and McCain by nine and a half. And so forth.

It's the narrowest win in over twenty years - which surely counts as a "very close election." By percentage (instead of raw numbers) it was even closer. Even with vastly more people voting these days than ever did in the past, in the last century the only narrower ones were Gore-Bush by half a million, Carter-Ford by 1.7 million, Nixon-Humphrey by half a million, Kennedy-Nixon by a scrawny 113 thousand, and the legendarily close Truman-Dewey at two million.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Did they? It was one of the skinniest margins of all times.

Jim, I think you and are looking at this “closeness” for this Prez Election from two completely different ways. I am looking at this election with factual election numbers, and since the winner of a Prez Election is determined by electoral votes and not popular votes, the final electoral count was Trump 312 to Harris 226. This is not a close electoral election count Jim by the “skinniest margins”. I would think the “skinniest margins” for electoral votes would have been something like 271 electoral votes to 267 electoral votes. And, Trump won by millions the popular vote. But I understand how you are thinking the "skinniest margin" for this election with the voters of this country still divided by the skinniest of margins, so this divided beat will continue no matter what long after you and I are gone from the planet. This country was born with division aspects and its destiny is to stay divided politically. Prez elections will always come down to economic issues, IMO. Like Bill Clinton said: "Its the economy stupid!" And Harris had no economic issues to run on except if you hate Trump-- vote for me, and for sure there are many hate Trumpers---certain news outlets will see to this hate issue for their corporate bottom line of making $. If Trump does not put more $ into the working people's pockets--then if the Dem Party can come-up with the right candidate then the Dem party will win next election, but I would be willing to bet the candidate will not be Harris. I think her Donors have now completly abandon her.

[Veronica]

Actually in looking at the EC votes and how they are “won” those numbers are insanely close, if a state is found unvettable/illegal/wrong and thrown out, the results cannot be confirmed and Kamala could be declared winner. If PA for example was found to have the election tampered with, all 19 votes are tossed not just one. So this was an exceedingly close election, in the vein of Gore/Bush regardless if you look at popular vote or EC.

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes, I figured you were looking at the electoral totals. Yes, that determines the outcome of the election, though I think it doesn't tell much else about what happened, e.g., how many people in the country aligned with one candidate or the other - the difference is razor thin.

Also, you were commenting on how wrong the pollsters and other forecasters were; except all they were really able to forecast on were elements boiling down to the popular vote.

Though the electoral college is the way the outcome is measured, it doesn't measure how close the election was in terms of people's choices. 49.9% of those voting made one choice, 48.4% made the other. That's a 1.5% difference. In the last century, only Kennedy-Nixon, Nixon-Humphrey, Bush-Gore, and Trump-Clinton were skinnier margins.

(I've also been getting aggravated that this conversation is being carried on in a thread about Kamala Harris' chart. It's digressing the thread entirely and I haven't been quite clear where to draw the line, i.e., which post branched it off down this other road. )

[Jim Eshelman]

Actually in looking at the EC votes and how they are “won” those numbers are insanely close, if a state is found unvettable/illegal/wrong and thrown out, the results cannot be confirmed and Kamala could be declared winner. If PA for example was found to have the election tampered with, all 19 votes are tossed not just one. So this was an exceedingly close election, in the vein of Gore/Bush regardless if you look at popular vote or EC.

Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. If Pennsylvania's 19 electoral votes were thrown out, then the whole winner would be calculated based on the remaining 519 total votes. It would only take 260 votes to win and Trump would have 293.

But I agree it was an exceedingly close election in the vein of Gore-Bush.

[Jim Eshelman]

...this divided beat will continue no matter what long after you and I are gone from the planet. This country was born with division aspects and its destiny is to stay divided politically.

With Pluto in Capricorn, I'm afraid this is true: America as I have always known it may be essentially dead for the remainder of my life. I may live to see the early years of Pluto in Aquarius (hardly guaranteed, but hope I do).

Regardless... yes, the country is historically polarized. That's part of what comes from being a dualistic Gemini nation. But the country hasn't always been this divided. I've only tallied numbers back to 1920, but the election was won by over 60% of the popular vote by Harding, by Coolidge, almost by Hoover, then by FDR. Eisenhower won against Stevenson twice with over 55%. Then it was over 60% again for Johnson over Goldwater, Nixon over McGovern, almost there for Reagan twice, with Clinton almost 55% twice. It's only in the 21st century - beginning with the 0.3% difference in 2000 - that this has drastically changed and become close to 50-50% every election. Even Obama's roaring win over McCain by almost 10 million votes, considered a landslide at the time, was with less than 54% of the vote. Biden's 52% win over Trump was a victory but hardly a route!

Historically the people of this country have usually been much closer to making a clear national choice. This 50-50 division (as a routinely recurring result) is primarily a 21st century matter.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

America as I have always known it may be essentially dead for the remainder of my life.

Same for me Jim in so many ways.

[Venus_Daily]

Jim wrote:

America as I have always known it may be essentially dead for the remainder of my life.

Same for me Jim in so many ways.

Well, I think the only solace we can take is knowing that this is that this is the universe's plan in action. And on such a grand scale we could say that we might be pushing societal or physical evolution forward. We always have to remember that on this scale, our suffering and nostalgia doesn't actually matter in the grand scheme of things. As soon as the first microorganism decided to divide, that was it.