the math in the big bang theory actually doesn't add up. if the big bang happened, and nothing previously existed, then we shouldn't exist either.
some kind of explosion happened - we have the cosmic radiation. we can be pretty sure of it. but, the right reading of the theory (this is highly unorthodox) is actually that it couldn't be the sole source of matter around us, that there must have been some other source of matter.
see, we've boxed ourselves into a corner with this. we seek a beginning. but, this is a religious assumption and not a scientific deduction. we are searching for something we've already decided must exist. we're not really measuring evidence and trying to determine if there was actually a beginning or not.
again: i think that if you really look at what we know carefully, and discard all extraneous assumptions, what the evidence proves is that the big bang was not the beginning of anything, and that we must be in an open universe.
this is important in context, because it opens up the possibility that these galaxies are being dragged by something outside of the observable universe - and that was already there before the big bang happened.
listen: the dark matter isn't there. it's just the recycled ether hypothesis, anyways. einstein got rid of the ether, then it snuck back in as dark matter. whether my idea is right or wrong, the ether isn't there and it's time we came to terms with it.
i just want to clarify that when i say "open universe", what i mean is that events outside of the universe can affect events within it and not something about the shape of the universe. that was sloppy.
this is where the language comes from, but it's not at all what i mean to say. i don't mean to say that some supernatural entity is pulling strings. i just mean to say that i think there's something else physically out there, and that it may not obey the physics we understand.
these emerson polls are producing very different results. i don''t know why.
it's ivr + landline only.
the last canadian election had a company doing polling with a similar method (ivr) and with the same argument that it "reduces bias" (which is just a guess, really, and not a good one). they consistently had the conservatives five or six points higher than anybody else. and, they ended the election with the worst results.
i don't think that ivr "reduces human bias". rather, i think that what it does is it reduces the sample space and creates a distorted outcome.
their results are just widely deviant. and, i'd be careful with them.
the best polls are with human interviewers. this is very well understood.
the vlog for last weekend is done, and it's arguably not even a vlog but a film. well, i guess it can be both. 3 hours. it covers the events over the 9th, 10th and 11th. it gets a little dramatic. but it is what it is.....
i'm finally sleeping. and now i can't wake up.
whatever happened...last...
it was last week, now.
but it wired me awake.
for a week...
the sleep feels good. i'm going to let it run it's course.
again: he can win ohio & florida & nevada & iowa and it won't matter if she wins virginia.
so, yes - the polls are tightening. does that mean the regression analysis was right? no. it means people are freaked out that clinton keeps collapsing in public. this guy does everything wrong and keeps fluking out...
the situation is fundamentally different now than it was a few weeks ago. this is a different race than it was last month.
we'll have to wait and see how it stabilizes.
my guess is that trump stays roughly flat, while clinton bleeds to third party candidates. it might be enough that he can win on the split.
but, if she can convince people she's ok, it will also probably snap back in place.
i mean, the basic shape hasn't altered - the right shape is a big distance, and the tightening is the noise. if you ask people in january, you'll likely get that big lead, again. if you look at it over five years, ten years you'll see something kind of sinusoidal where the gap is usually large but sometimes decreases. it's just that this is not the right time to be falling over in public. and, if the election coincides with a period of flux, she's in for a loss.
i said previously that the only way he could win is a terrorist attack. well, ok, i'll add a second way - and that's if people become convinced that she's dying. you'll excuse me for not foreseeing that.
it's the same basic dynamic, though. she will only lose through perceived weakness.
also note that you still need to be careful about ignoring online polls, which seem to be reporting an exaggerated effect.
i posted this back at the end of july. i think it's still relevant.
i just want to point out that with ohio, i don't think it's about trade or about abortion, i think it's more about nascar - it's cultural. that's why bush won twice. most of ohio is really a southern state. this is where mccain and romney coming across as out of touch elitists hurt them, and where clinton's status as an elite hurts her. if anything, the abortion thing is going to make what should be a walk for trump a lot closer as it's going to get the vote out in the northern part of the state. but, trump wins here for the same reasons that bush did. she has a better chance in florida. but, i think you'll see the same basic dynamic assert itself on a slightly lower level. the north of florida is the south; while anti-trump feeling will likely increase turnout in the south, it's cultural affinities will overpower in ways that romney and mccain couldn't orchestrate. again: bush won florida. twice. due to recent demographic changes, north carolina is maybe a wildcard. but, i think it's a stretch to argue it's a swing state. one win in the modern era does not a swing state make. indiana is not a swing state, either. the map technically has her less than 270, but that doesn't really put the election in play. if she wins virginia, she wins. if she wins missouri, she wins. if she wins both iowa and nevada, she wins. what are the chances of none of that happening? of trump carrying 3 of those 4 states? they're not very high. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8cmUHDQyeA
the above graph was based on the assumption that trump would fall in line and essentially be the same candidate as bush.
the reasons i started thinking about a clinton landslide were two-fold.
1) the polls were careening that way.
2) trump was not following orders.
this threatened to create a revolt in the republican base that would produce a result more similar to '92 or '96.
but, clinton's health has since become an issue. it was the coughing fit last week that started freaking people out. she could barely get through the address. it probably cost her ohio.
i don't think that's going to have the effect of undoing the republican revolt so much as it has the effect of creating a similar backlash amongst democrats, or left-leaning independents. and, it may also make johnson seem more attractive to republicans that can't vote for trump.
the end result is that while the bleeding on the right might not stop, the bleeding on the left might increase, and it could in the end balance out.
the newest poll had johnson at 13 and stein at 4. they're both up. i know not to read too heavily. but, i doubt it's coincidental.
so, instead of having this situation where they're tied at 48, you're going to get this situation where they're tied at 38. and it's just going to bring us back to where we were.
i'd have to hit the history books to find a comparable situation.
but, note what i'm doing here: i'm reacting to events. i'm adjusting to evidence. i'm not making predictions.
there is some chance that you could end up with 92 or 96 after all - but with the parties reversed.
in the popular vote. of course. that would create chaos on the map.
you could end up with bizarre outcomes like the republicans winning new jersey and the democrats winning texas.
