Comparative Analysis of Astrological Signs of US Presidents

I am strange and suddenly developed the urge to do some statistical analysis on the astrological signs of US presidents. I may branch out into other world leaders later as well, but for now, some fun info:

__________

The SIGNS under which the HIGHEST # of US Presidents fall are Aquarius and Libra with 5 Presidents each.

The SIGNS under which the FEWEST # of US Presidents fall are Aries, Virgo and Gemini with 2 Presidents each.

__________

At first glance, it appears that some signs are better cut out for leadership than others...

Aquarius presidents include Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt & Ronald Reagan
Cancer presidents include Calvin Coolidge, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush

__________

Out of the first 10 Presidents, 50% were Water signs, 30% Fire signs, 10% Air and 10% Earth

Out of the last 10 Presidents, 40% Air, 20% Water, 20% Fire, 20% Earth

__________

For more in-depth look, used the aggregated rankings from the table Here...

(Note, in the top/bottom half rankings I excluded lowest ranking signs, those with only 1 president apiece, as statistically insignificant)

Of the 1st Quartile of presidents we have:

20% Aquarius
20% Pisces
20% Scorpio
10% Aries, Capricorn, Libra, Taurus

If you calculate it for the statistic for the upper half:

19% Aquarius
19% Pisces
14% Scorpio
10% Leo

On the other hand, the 4th Quartile has:

18% Sagittarius
18% Capricorn
18% Taurus
9% Aries, Aquarius, Leo, Libra, Cancer

While the bottom half as a whole cones to:

18% Libra
14% Cancer
14% Sagittarius
14% Capricorn
9% Taurus, Leo

__________

So in sum, in appears that Aquarius and Pisces make the BEST presidents, while Libra and Sagittarius make the WORST.

(Chose sagittarius over cancer and capricorn in this case by looking at overall ranking of all sagittarius presidents vs. all cancer and all capricorn presidents)
__________

One last fun fact - both the longest serving President (Franklin Roosevelt, 12 years 1 month) and the shortest serving president (William Henry Harrison, 32 days) were Aquariuses

Cassandra022 said:

I am strange and suddenly developed the urge to do some statistical analysis on the astrological signs of US presidents. I may branch out into other world leaders later as well, but for now, some fun info.......

Click to expand...

As a bit of fun it's OK but it's of little value from an Astrological standpoint. Sun signs gained popularity in a large part because they are reasonably stable from year to year (though not as stable as 'horoscope' columns would have us believe). But there are several other bodies which are important and in the case of the Moon, at least as important as the Sun. Unfortunately there positions are not as easily discovered without an ephemeris and (for the Moon) a reasonably accurate timepiece.

What's more the position of these other bodies (and the Sun) in an Astrological chart gives them more or less importance for the individual concerned. So a good piece of research might well be to cast charts for all the presidents, and look for prominent planets by position. The difficulty is that we know reasonably accurate birth data in terms of day, month and year but not in terrms of the time of day for the presidents (or at least most of them). This doesn't preclude doing, say, Sunrise Charts for them all, to have some comparative planet positions by sign, or form the time they took the oath of office (or their term of office constitutionally began, or even one compared to the other.

Incidentally in such a statistical exercise as the Sign comparison above, you should really take into consideration the distribution of all births by season, or better still month, as a control (plus any allowances for changes in that distribution over time). If there's a 'natural' tendency for the birth rate to be low in late January and most of February, then it's not surprising that there are fewer Aquarian presidents.

Hi Cassandra022,
I really enjoyed reading this post. I'm no astrologer, but it must have taken quite a long time for you to do that! Thanks for sharing your notes with us. It was very very interesting!

Like Scibility, I'm no astrologer, but I found this interesting too. While I do get Minderwiz's point that you need to take into consideration the placement of the other planets in their charts, I was amazed to see how many of them were born in the Aquarius and Libra positions. I would have thought more Aries, Taurus or perhaps even Leos in that group! Perhaps they have strong lines in these 3 signs though elsewhere in their chart.

Also surprising to me was that they were not more earthy. I would think having a President who was quite earthy would be ideal. but then, what do I know? I did enjoy reading this post and agree, you must have spent a lot of time on this. also makes me wonder if we should run the charts of the people running for the Presidency in the upcoming election. May help us to find the right person for the job!

thanks Cassandra for this post. very interesting!