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.