Thread by @ThyConsigliori

John Minford, #SunTzu 9: 20 "If there are many screens in the grass, he wants to perplex us."

Screens in the grass? Yeah, that's tough one, and without the commentators I'd have no way of figuring it out. So, we turn to Giles: "The presence of a number of screens or sheds in the midst of thick vegetation is a sure sign that the enemy has fled and...

"fearing pursuit, has constructed these hiding-places in order to make us suspect an ambush." Giles continues, "It appears these 'screens' were hastily knotted together out of any long grass which the retreating enemy happened to come across."

I'm not sure why, but Giles (and yes, he's quoting one ancient commentator who is in turn quoting another) use of the term "shed" somehow really helps me visualize. Also, note the term "hastily knotted together." So once again, we're taught to observe details.

By the way, this surely will not be the last time we turn to Giles and his ancients in this chapter!

So, we have a false presentation, which is supposed to scare us and cause hesitation, rather than pursuing our enemy and finishing him off. Sound familiar?

We've discussed the 2010 taking of the House by Tea Partiers many times, and their complete betrayal by the Republican power establishment. They were Obama's screen knotters. We had the Obama world on the run, but failed to pursue. Damned Republicans did it again.

And following 2016, how many times did we hear that there was bipartisan opposition to this or that that Trump wanted to do, and then they'd trot out Jeff Flake and John McCain. Screen and shed builders each of them. Turncoat liars.

Enough about those scumbags. Let's look at an industry of false science, screens and huts galore, the practice of political polling. They've hoodwinked America into giving them credibility as if it were a science. Mostly, it's not even a grass, but rather a mere smoke screen.

Any "serious" polling outfit always publishes the basis of their "research." In fact, that is a good practice, but how many people know to check, let alone actually do? The terms often reflect a clear influence of small print legalese and are as boring as all get out.

Yet, there are some easy things to look for. First is sample size. Over 1,000 participants is better than less, and less than 500 tells you they're not serious pollsters, at all, rather, it's just not a serious poll in any way, even in a corrupt one.

There's just no way to reflect America with less than 1,000 participants or so. I've heard the number 1,200 as needed. I've heard other higher numbers. I just use 1,000 since the zeroes make it easy. Having checked that, the predictive model is the most important thing.

The current "state of the art" (my quotation marks are intended to convey, well, if not pure scorn than maybe some lesser version) surrounds the difference between People, Registered Voters, and Likely Voters. Likely Voters is considered most accurate.

Also, I'd actually tend to believe in the science behind it all, myself, if I didn't know how purposefully they skew it all. But if the scientific integrity - political honesty - was there, then you could address the scientific questions readily. Here's an easy example.

Let's call for, say, 1,200 Likely Voters, or maybe 2,500 Registered Voters, or maybe 3,500 People. Do you see the ratios there? Lots and lots of just people might begin to get you a form of meaningful data. A well-chosen sample of fewer Likely Voters will still be better.

We won't discuss the method of contact - landline phone vs cell phone, or an online mode, etc. - nor will we discuss how the questions are constructed, who the survey is paid for by, or many other connected topics. We will discuss the model, and then back to Master Sun.

Here's an example of a model, and if it was utilized, it wouldn't be bad method. 63 Republicans vs 66 Democrats, as a ratio. Why? 63 million voted for Trump in 2016, and 66 million for HRC. Just using last term's numbers is not a bad way of going about polling.

But that's not what happens. Every poll has its own predictive model, but the ones that you hear most about almost always pad the Democrats, and often hugely, and restrict the number of Republicans polled.

Picture an old-fashioned scale, like you always see with Lady Justice. Now, picture the Democrats essentially owning the polling industry, and always laying their mighty swamp thumb on the scale. That's the polling industry. Screen and hut builders galore.

The real principle they operate by is called a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. If they get you to believe the Democrats will win, and you're not a Democrat, you'll be less likely to vote. If you are a Democrat, you'll be more likely to vote. That's their theory and it's not a bad one.

Now go back to 2016 and how all the polls (except the one I chose to use!) predicted HRC, if not by a landslide, then by easy victory. Yes indeed, it was @realDonaldTrump who exposed the hellacious thumbprint of this false science industry.

@realDonaldTrump I have to give you today's worst example. How many times have you heard that every Democrat running would defeat Trump in a one-on-one matchup, or more recently, that any of the top 4 have him by dramatic numbers down? Is this even true? Likely not, even with today's data.

@realDonaldTrump But today's data is so bad that even if anyone cared to try do the science right, it might still predict such stupidities. There is no science there, period. There's no reflection of reality, and again, all the data is skewed from the get-go. These are grass screens and huts.

@realDonaldTrump Here's today's last example. You're debating away with a true friend, but one on the other side of the aisle. Back and forth you go, jab and stab, guard and deflect, step aside and prepare your next strike, it goes. And then, you find your true winning case. You're jazzed!

@realDonaldTrump Does your friend give you the satisfaction of recognition? Nope. He goes silent. What I've found is that winning a debate is never greeted with anything other than crickets chirping suddenly very loudly. Then what happens? Your friend shows up again after a time.

@realDonaldTrump And with what? The same old arguments which are now nothing but grass screens and huts. Empty shells designed to discourage your pursuit. Which brings me to Master Sun's real point here. Don't buy in. Pursue and finish off your enemy. The flimsy knots tell all.

@realDonaldTrump And that's what we must do in 2020. Can you picture it? We reclaim the House which has become, now, basically nothing but a MAGA caucus. We hit the super majority of 60 in the Senate, with the MAGA mission emblazoned upon them. Trump is in full control of the White House.

@realDonaldTrump What won't we be able to achieve? The key is that we must finish off the enemy this time, no messing about, no believing in their flimsy shadows of power that they no longer wield. It's time to win.

Completely.

@realDonaldTrump 247 verses completed, 191 to go.

To return to previous sections in our #WarForAmerica2020 and #SunTzuForMAGA series, don't forget to head over to @WarForAmerica21. You'll find the digital table of contents for this series, there. Please retweet each entry you enjoy.