Well, not really. But a really dumb article from ABC news says that astrologers predict Obama will win in November. Why?
In May, seven astrologers at the United Astrology Conference in Denver predicted that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. would win the White House in November, citing Saturn’s opposition to Uranus on Election Day as a celestial occurrence that pits a stodgy planet against one of rebellion, resulting in transformation and social upheaval.
So McCain is Uranus? Interesting. Make your own jokes (but keep them to yourself, please, and not in the comments) but I find it funny that they equate McCain to a bloated methane-filled planet that’s tipped way over on one side, making it spin weirdly.
Now, the article is filled with the usual astrological made-up garbage about alignments and eclipses and other stuff astrologers pull out of Uranus. And it’s written with an obvious tongue-in-cheek style, as if this abrogates the writer of any journalistic responsibility. But it doesn’t. I’d like to see the records of these quoted astrologers in previous elections. What’s their success rate? I bet it’s around 50% for most of them. Have any astrologers got a good track record for predicting elections? I guess that wasn’t important enough to mention in this puff piece.
I’ll give the writer some credit though, for putting this in at the top of the piece:
To predict presidential destinies, some go to political pundits on the Sunday morning circuit to guide the way … [but] others look to the planets, where they find reason in the retrograde…
Reason in retrograde. Oh, I do agree with that.
Tip o’ the wizard’s cap to BABloggee Paul Bertolini II for divining this article out.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“Now, the article is filled with the usual astrological made-up garbage about alignments and eclipses and other stuff astrologers pull out of Uranus.”
Well, I’m glad they pull it out of Uran… What? Oh, I can’t continue with this line of thought?
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Actually, I’d imagine their track records are more than 50%, at least over many elections, since the winner of an election is, by definition, the more popular guy. Trivially, for any direct (non-Presidential) election, if you picked a voter at random and used their vote as your prediction, you’d get a more than 50% success rate. That doesn’t mean they’re worth anything, of course, it just means that elections aren’t random
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I especially love astrology that uses planets like Uranus and Neptune…the ones that needed either telescopes or telescopes + gravity to be discovered…..millenia after astrology had been created.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
“citing Saturn’s opposition to Uranus on Election Day as a celestial occurrence that pits a stodgy planet against one of rebellion, resulting in transformation and social upheaval”
I took this to mean Obama was Uranus. No offence or hidden meaning, its just by the ordering of words…Saturn opposed to Uranus, stodgy against rebellion. I was very upset that Obama plans on expanding Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Looks like I’m voting independent in the November.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Hmmm, you may be right. But the way it’s phrased, it sounds like Saturn is rebellion and Uranus is stodgy.
Still, what I wrote was funny.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Granted. Neither of us have researched the art and science of Astrology to know which of the planets are which.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
On the topic of journalistic responsibility (or the lack thereof), have you seen the ads on CNN about Larry King’s upcoming program? It’s titled “Psychic Kids!” and John Edward (the fraud, not the politician) will be featured.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
There’s a link near the bottom of the page to send comments. I did.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Hmmm… so you’ve decided not to tag your comment posts as “Bad Astronomer” and go with “Phil Plait” instead? That and the loss of the Bad Astronomy logo and the small “Bad Astronomy” title under the very large DISCOVER marquee… Has the de-branding of “Bad Astronomy” begun?
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“What’s their success rate? I bet it’s around 50% for most of them.”
I’d argue it would be closer to the polls of a particular week of the prediction.
I wonder how many of the astrologers predicted McCain would be the nominee before New Hampshire (when McCain was discounted by the pundits over Romney and Huckabee)
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
….Wow AstrologyChick…
http://www.astrologychick.com/astrology-blog/tag/uranus
Anyway, Uranus is Rebellion. I now need to cleanse myself of Astrology Knowledge.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Welcome to your new “digs”, BA.
Here is an absolutely mind-numbingly inane video of an astrologer claiming that Obama star chart only makes sense if he was born in Kenya (re: rabid Republican/Hillary support conspiracy theory no. 342)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr1GhSvuGcs
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
The jokes on them. Americans are by and large still too racist to elect a black man.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
[…] to Bad Astronomy for the tip on the ABC […]
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
In my own little experiment, I just flipped 11 coins (one for each planet, plus Pluto, the moon, and the Sun, thereby covering off the major astrological bodies). Heads Obama Wins, Tails Obama Loses.
The result: 5 heads (Earth, Sun, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto), 6 tails (Mercury, Venus, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn)
Sorry, you’ve got McCain.
Go go astrology!
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Americans are by and large still too racist to elect a black man.
Wasn’t there just a poll that suggested they’d pick a gay black man over an atheist?
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Americans are by and large still too racist to elect a black man.
Cite?
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
My knowledge of astronomy leads me to predict an Obama win. The planets also tell me that there will be a stupid action movie released this summer; that the socialite daughter of a multi-millionaire will do something foolish in public; and that the sky will be blue most days of the coming week.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
“The jokes on them. Americans are by and large still too racist to elect a black man.”
Agreed. I was kind of hoping Hillary Clinton would get the nomination because I think we’re more or less over our sexist tendencies but have a long way left to go on our bigotry.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
@ Hoonser
I think Americans are by and large still too racist to elect a black man.
There… fixed that for you.
And I’m not sure recent polls support that assertion… http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
John:
Perhaps they’d just say that that’s why astrology is more accurate than it used to be — because they didn’t know about Uranus and Neptune. (Does Pluto no longer affect us because it’s not a “planet” anymore?) And, I suppose, any errors are because they don’t have enough information on Nibiru’s orbit.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
In fact, looking at poll data thus far… I looked at polls from ABC, CBS, CNN, Cook, Fox, Gallup, NBC, and USA Today… every single one was in favor of Obama across the board. I’m not saying you’re categorically wrong… but at the very least, so far the data doesn’t support your statement.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I just don’t get Astrology! Do they get their information from tables, or do they really ever check the sky? Uranus would be in opposition to Saturn if it were opposite the Sun in Saturn’s sky. Uranus, in November, will be in the sky with the sun. That term is conjunction, not opposition.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Does that mean it will be a Dual Ticket, Obama and McCain?
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Elsewhere on the pseudoscience front, right-wing blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs continues his now-daily defense of evolution and science in general, setting off something akin to civil war among the posters.
From the comments, it appears that the YECs and IDers are getting their heads handed to them. Some of the creationist members claim that Johnson is losing readership over this. He says he doesn’t care, it is a matter of principle.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
See, I think their success rate will be higher than 50%. Astrologers (I would hope) are shrewd people who know it’s all junk, and as such, try their best to make keen observation on society. When it comes to justification, they use their professional lingo to justify their opinion as fact. So… any smart person can see that the polls favor Obama, so then it’s just a matter of coming up with an astrological justification for it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“The jokes on them. Americans are by and large still too racist to elect a black man.”
And here we go. I love it when it is implied that those who oppose Obama (or, rather, support McCain) must do so because they are racist. Yep, that’s the reason.
And, since this is a science/skeptical blog, let’s make sure to point everybody to today’s story where Obama says he will expand GWB’s faith-based programs.
http://tinyurl.com/3k46je
And one more reason for me to support Obama goes down the tubes.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Phil,
I wouldn’t worry about what Astrologers say at this time. After all, the poor dears are probably still trying to decide :
(1) do we still allow for the influence of Pluto?
(2) should we be allowing for the influence of Xena er Eris?
(3) should we be allowing for the influence of extraSolar planets? which ones?
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
@Flooey Says:
“Actually, I’d imagine their track records are more than 50%, at least over many elections, since the winner of an election is, by definition, the more popular guy. ”
Unless you’re Al Gore.
@Celtic_Evolution Says:
“I think Americans are by and large still too racist to elect a black man.”
You can change it back for the bible belt anyway.
@Tyler Durden Says:
“we’re more or less over our sexist tendencies but have a long way left to go on our bigotry.”
True. Even though, historically, the reverse was true in some ways (with black men having the right to vote before women, etc.).
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
@Jeffersonian
Unless you’re Al Gore.
Actually I would say everyone making a prediction in 2000 can claim they were right. If they said Bush, he was elected, if they said Gore, he got the popular vote. It was a win-win for anyone making a prediction…except the pundits.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
@ Jeffersonian
You can change it back for the bible belt anyway.
THAT is certainly true. An interesting poll that backs that statement is here:
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/exit-polls/race-ethnicity.html
White voters were polled from every state, indicating what percentage voted for Obama. Now, understanding Jason’s point that it may be irresponsible to assign not voting for Obama purely to racism, the poll is very telling in that the following states had the lowest support for Obama:
Arkansas - 16%
Kentucky - 22%
Florida - 23%
S. Carolina - 24%
Alabama - 25%
Tennessee - 26%
West Virginia - 28%
Oklahoma - 29%
These were the only states with less than 30% of white voters supporting Obama… make of it what you will.
The overall numbers still support Obama at this point in the upcoming election, so I’d still stand by my original point… but you are right about the Bible belt, Jeffersonian.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Picking one to win would mean more if either were likely to make the lot of the average Joe any better. I predict ‘different clown, same circus’.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
“I bet it’s around 50% for most of them.”
It’s worth pointing out that if an astrologer has a 50/50 chance of getting each election right, after 10 elections, one in 1024 astrologers (on average) will have gotten all 10 right. So it’s actually *expected* that *someone* nails them all.
This is why I put little credence in bogus statistics like “As goes X, so goes the nation”.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Note that the astrologer has a 50% chance of being correct. So when ‘bama gets elected, boneheads will try to vindicate the astrologer….
Sheesh…as Harlan Ellison has said, the two most common things in the Universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity….
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
@Jason
I think you’ve misinterpreted Hoonser’s statement. It didn’t say if you oppose Obama, then you are racist. Unfortunately, there are still enough racists around to make it difficult for Obama to win.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
@aleph1=c
I think you’ve misinterpreted Hoonser’s statement. It didn’t say if you oppose Obama, then you are racist. Unfortunately, there are still enough racists around to make it difficult for Obama to win.
First off, I totally agree that racism (as well as a host of other evil “isms”) are alive and well in the U.S. I don’t believe he was calling any specific person a racist. But, I believe, implied in his statement, is the assertion that Obama is unelectable because he is black.
(As an aside, I wasn’t aware that the rest of the western world was so enlightened that the U.S. was the only place where black people were underrepresented in high office, but I digress)
Certainly, his promise to spend public money on “faith-based initiatives” a la GWB didn’t help him woo my vote. I wonder why I seem to be the only person on this blog bothered by that?
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
You might be surprised how accurate they can appear. I recall in 1992 psychic Linda Georgian early in the race first predicted Bush (”then added anybody but Clinton”) would win then later predicted Clinton would win. Then of course she would brag about her correct prediction, though she bet on both sides! The problem is people have short memories, and don’t pay them much attention, nor do they demand that the skeptical perspective be presented. I agree with Phil, they should have delved into their own past predictions, they can still make amends–day after election day print results if they were wrong. They could ask the psychics to predict the contest in each of the 50 states, make it a pop quiz so they don’t know it is coming (oh but give them a map, I mean geography doesn’t necessarily have to be the forte’ of the psychic)
I agree that journalists should be more responsible about printing an article about psychics. Yes they typically are for amusement but they still have a responsibility. For example it is fairly typical after a poll to have a bit of small print about whether it was a scientific poll and also the margin of error. If such meticulous adherence to the truth and the whole truth is needed for a poll, then psychics certainly deserve a bit of the skeptical eye.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I sure hope Obama wins. Not that I like his politics, in fact just the opposite. I think he is far too naive, especially on international matters. But if he loses we’re going to have another four years of Democrats and supporters bitching and moaning about how the Republicans “stole” the election because Obama was “supposed” to win. I really don’t want to go through that again.
This election is the Democrats to lose. With GWB’s approval rating where it’s been the past few years, you’d think all they’d need is a candidate with a pulse to beat anyone who even mildly aligns himself with the current administration. However the protracted Barrack-Hillary war revealed far more than I think either candidate wanted to that early. Their little love fest last week to show “unity” did do the trick for me. Outside of being completely staged and orchestrated (well, what isn’t in politics?), it showed the hypocrisy of political campaigns in general. “Hey, all that mud we were slinging at each other the past year and a half? We didn’t really mean it. This person’s really all right. It’s ‘The Other Guy’ who’s the bad one.”
- Jack
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Ach! That was supposed to be “didn’t do the trick for me” in the last post.
- Jack
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Jason, I’ve been very concerned with several of the recent ballyhooed “movements to the right” by Obama — until I heard him explain them, at which point I thought, “Oh, is that all?”. They seem to have been grossly mischaracterized in the MSM. Re: the faith-based initiative specifically, you can read more discussion of it here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/07/this_is_depressing_barack_obama_promises.php
and here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/obama_and_faithbased_initiativ.php
Now, would I prefer a candidate who would not only abolish the office of faith-based initiatives, but also try to revoke churches’ tax exemption? Absolutely. But I know I’m not going to get that; so, I’ll settle for someone that I think will at least curtail the wingnut welfare and redirect the program towards genuine charity. Or I could vote for Nader again…
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I’m shocked! SHOCKED at you Phil! How dare you compare Uranus to that bloated hot-air-filled politician that’s tipped way over to the right, making him um.. spin.. um.. weirdly..
What was I saying?
Oh right… Uranus is the interesting planet! You Uranus-haters make me sick!
..and congrats on the new digs.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I live in Australia and my 7 year old nephew can tell Obama is going to win.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 am
Relax Phil, if anything the astrologers are actually better at predicting the future than political pundits, believe me.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 am
As an aside, I wasn’t aware that the rest of the western world was so enlightened that the U.S. was the only place where black people were underrepresented in high office, but I digress)
It’s the usual sport of the frothing ideologues claiming Americans are so foul and evil, meanwhile everyone else in the world is just as bad (or worse) in their own ways. Meanwhile, racial and ethnic slaughter and cleansing go on all over the world. It’s *human* that basically suck, not any particular group. Anything else is that magic combination of politics and mental illness that seems to be sweeping the planet more and more these days.
If “holier than thou” attitudes could be converted to energy, Europe could launch their whole continent into orbit. The hypocrisy is neck deep over there.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 am
I wonder if any people’s votes are influenced by this? Another media article saying, “X is going to win” might not tip people’s choices, but if it’s based on something they believe in, they might just go with the flow. I mean, if someone found a cheese sandwich with Jesus and Obama on it, the publicity for that might be interesting too.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:47 am
Interestingly enough, studies have shown psychics to be less “accurate” than a mere coin toss…
Robert
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 am
Yeah, well, the astrologers also said that Bush II would be a single term president and look where that got us. . .
I hope Obama wins, but if he does I’m sure it will have absolutely nothing to do with Uranus.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 am
I mean, if someone found a cheese sandwich with Jesus and Obama on it, the publicity for that might be interesting too.
No thanks. There’s enough messianic talk surrounding Obama already.
I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but left leaners like him forget that when they draw the “wealthy” line, they ignore the fact that the cost of living can vary by a order of magnitude even within the same state. “Wealthy” in Ohio is not wealthy in Southern California.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
8 years of Republican rule, the Republican war on science, and the Christian Jhihad led by King George … and I didn’t yet mention the deficit that’s grown by leaps and bounds.
Obama being likened to Kennedy, a Democrat, and the only one to run against McCain. Youth versus an old dude. A new way versus “4 more years”. Religous extremism out the window.
Religous nuts alienated by BOTH candidates. Republicans P!$$ed at the sorry state of “conservatism”. A minority turnout like none other.
Even a bad psychic ought to be able to call this one!
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
@KevinTheGuesser
. . . and the Christian Jhihad led by King George . . .
Not to sound like I’m defending Christian fundamentalists (or GWB) who want to insert religious beliefs/indoctrination into schools, gov’t, etc . . . but I don’t see a lot of them flying planes into buildings, strapping bombs to children or using other tactics practiced by actual jihadists.
I’m not sure who you are really trying to insult: Christian fundlmentalists — almost none of whom use or advocate violence as a means to further their cause — or actual jihadists — who probably look at Christian fundamentalists as wimps for their relative nonviolence.
I think fundamentalists of all ilk give us enough fodder without painting all of them as terrorists.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Umm, Jason, when you have an air force with stealth bombers, you don’t need to fly airplanes into buildings to destroy them. I do agree with you mostly, though, about fundamentalists in general. The vast majority (Christian, Moslem, or anything else) are probably non-violent. But put in a tight spot, they might rationalize *supporting* violence even if they won’t practice it themselves. Also, I wonder if the fundamentalism actually motivates the violence/terrorism, or is just used to help the terrorists rationalize it. The KKK, burning and bombing black churches in the 50’s and 60’s, consisted mostly of Christian fundamentalists, but I don’t know it they used their fundamentalism to justify their actions. On the other hand, their modern successors certainly do. Check the SPLC for details.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Love Horoscopes Truth
It has since been implemented in most other blogging tools. This enables authors to keep track of who is linking to, or referring