Jupiter in Cancer

[Jim Eshelman]

Jupiter is now in Cancer, the constellation of its exaltation. Here are historic dates when Jupiter was in Cancer. I invite people to study these periods for commonalities.

PS - Pres. Obama has a Cancer Sun. It can't hurt...! But, on that line, I'm wondering if anyone knows the history of the U.S. mid-term elections enough to pair these below. Because of it's 12-year cycle, Jupiter patterns recur every three election cycles and, while behavior for Presidential elections have been interesting in the past, I'm curious about the mid-terms.

19-Jul-1907 to 12-Aug-1908
4-Jul-1919 to 28-Jul-1920
18-Jun-1931 to 12-Jul-1932
14-Oct-1942 to 10-Dec-1942
31-May-1943 to 29-Oct-1943
28-Jan-1944 to 23-Jun-1944
14-Sep-1954 to 21-Jan-1955
9-May-1955 to 6-Oct-1955
5-Mar-1956 to 30-May-1956
25-Aug-1966 to 18-Sep-1967
9-Aug-1978 to 2-Sep-1979
24-Jul-1990 to 18-Aug-1991
9-Jul-2002 to 3-Aug-2003
23-Jun-2014 to 18-Jul-2015

[Jim Eshelman]

The Presidential election years are interesting to watch. Take Jupiter in Leo: About a third of the time, Jupiter is in Leo for the majority of the campaign year, though usually entering Virgo immediately before the election. Generally, this results in the election of a figure of enormous gravitas, generally regarded as an iconic figure (at least within their distinctive parties - the kind of name that is drawn on and used for decades as a symbol) - a nearly dynastic feel, even when that is not literally true. Their unusual enormity stands out. Consider:

FDR (twice! - 1932, 1944)
Eisenhower (reelection only, 1956)
Nixon (1968)
Reagan (1980)
Clinton (1992)

The one exception - the one name on the list to which I simply cannot attribute gravitas in any significant sense - is Bush 2, the anti-gravitas Gemini. Why the exception? Well, I see a couple of things. First, he is literally a dynastic figure in a way that only Gemini John Quincy Adams had been before. Second, in a trade-off, I'm sorry to say that his opponent, John Kerry, managed to generate even less gravitas than Bush. So I think the principle applies much the same.

This sets us up for the question: What does this bode for Hillary in 2016 when the pattern repeats?

[Jim Eshelman]

The remaining third of presidential elections follow a different pattern. Mostly, we expect Jupiter in Aries, though in modern times it has reached Taurus before the election. Since Presidential elections didn't used to start as early in the year as they do currently, sometimes Taurus marked most of the "election cycle."

This is a strange mix. Some of them are downright insipid - shy much real enthusiasm or passion compared to other years. They also have a tendency to have candidates that are more evenly matched, compared to many other years (e.g., no Nixon vs. McGovern type of years).

2012 is the least clear - perhaps I don't have enough distance on it. Obama reelected over Romney. Jupiter in Aries most of the year, then in Taurus at the end.

2000: Gore lost to Bush 2 (though nobody was sure right away). All rather insipid during the campaign and uncertain in the victory - the only real passion was in the aftermath

1988: Bush 1 over Dukakis. Can you think of another Presidential election where two gentle intellectuals competed for the prize? They are both the kind who usually would lose to a more imposing, passionate candidate.

1976: Carter over Ford, the Virgo over the Gemini. This is arguably the most insipid, spokesy campaign in modern times (and, again, they were closely matched).

1964: This was the reverse in form by identical in concept: Instead of two insipid candidates, we had two matched lions, LBJ winning over Goldwater. I don't remember a campaign with more shared gravitas.

1952: Suddenly, this seems to break the pattern: Eisenhower, though gentle and a gentleman, was the triumphant world-class war leader, beating intellectual Adlai Stevenson. Why the break in pattern? Ah, because Jupiter didn't make it to Taurus. That pattern began in 1964. From 1952 further back, it was Jupiter in Aries during the entire campaign period. In '52 and '40, the meaning of this is pretty clear.

[Jim Eshelman]

Interesting. Jim, does your experiences/work pertaining to elections with Jupiter in Virgo (pre-election) indicate to you Hillary wins 2016 with this Jupiter Cancer/Virgo pre-election effect?

If Hillary gets the nomination, and if she can rightly be characterized as having gravitas, a dynastic type quality and aura to her presence and possible presidency, and to come across as a moderate Democrat (what used to pass for an Eisenhower, or "classic," Republican), and if there is not another candidate that embodies these characteristics more... then yes.

See the 2016 election thread I started, though. If her AM chart is correct, there is a significant risk to her well-being (and possibly to her life) on Inauguration Day.

[Jim Eshelman]

Don't forget Jeb Bush, another dynasty figure. Jeb vs Hilary is interesting astrologically.

As of a year ago, a friend of the family told me Jeb doesn't at all see himself running. Instead, they've been grooming their son, George P. Bush, to come up through the family business. He's an Aries, former Navy officer, as gorgeous as JFK Jr., has the family following, is half-Latino (and looks it), a critical draw for a block of voters the party has been pursuing, and has already started moving into state politics. Jeb's main role, by this scenario, is to keep the name visible and contribute as a "party elder" while waiting for GPB to establish his bona fides.

Of course, Jeb could change his mind. He's been more visible. I still think, though, that he has taken himself out of that path.