You have that right Joshua!

I'm still hoping Romney will pick Bachmann as his VP choice - that would be really something to watch - LOL

Joshau, I am with you. Bachmann has been a total and huge embarrassment to Minnesota since the day she took office. I have people all over America asking me how could MN let her get in office? She is so dumb that any 3rd grader could teach her about American History.

They already did that.
http://stillwater.patch.com/articles/twin-cities-democrats-think-legislature-on-wrong-track

To clarify, my comment was meant to point out that the article told the average reader nothing new or interesting.
It did generate quite a few comments, which I suppose is one of the metrics AOL uses to judge their Patch employee performance. If you're into statistics, here's a few on this article.
930 words, (6112 characters) to convey information that could easily be fit into a 9 cell table.

43 Comments (at this time) which boil down to:
4 comments addressing the actual survey results.
7 off-topic comments on the association of colors with political parties.
20 comments discussing the usefulness or lack thereof of the article.
1 Defense of the usefulness of the article.

And the balance of comments are just trolling, or readers unable to comprehend other commenter's posts and starting flamewars.

I realize that it would be hard to get dignitaries in either political party to say anything of substance if they knew it would be attributed to them. Perhaps you can find a way to extract some useful, surprising, or otherwise generally not common sense information from the surveys.

Do sitting representatives have different views than candidates?
Is there anything that both sides agree on and can be productive lawmakers addressing?
Young Dems/Repubs views differing from the old guard?

The article differs from generic polls in packaging only. It merely repeats the same results, using a much smaller sample size, which makes for interesting margin of error only.

The commentary generated on this post is powerful testament to its being "interesting". People don't post when they don't care.

You DO realize this is the Internet, don't you Donald?

Things don't have to be interesting to generate comment. People will just type off-topic comments, or just try to antagonize others if the intended content isn't interesting.

Thoughtful articles beget thoughtful posts. Drivel begets flame wars and people screaming about their righteousness compared to their ideological opponents.

I'm not saying that the survey participants have nothing interesting to contribute, just that it hasn't been presented to the readership yet.

Has the ring of Red China...Or Russia.

It was the liberal media that decided Republican should be "red" and that Democrat should be "blue". Ironic, as other comments indicate, since red is indeed the historical color of socialism and communism, the planks of today's Democrat Party. Further irony comes from origins: it was liberal media socialists who decided to paint Republicans "red". Thus is revealed the real "red menace"... a doublespeaking media behaving in the worst of ways George Orwell warned western civilization about in his book "1984" -- a book he wrote as an exploration of the ultimate end of socialist movements ... Yet Republican conservatives, and conservatives generally, are the ones actually opposed to red socialism. The ironies abound.

The current conventional color scheme is indeed ironic, but its origins are more historical accident than liberal plot, as I understand it.

This article in the NYT does a pretty good job of covering the history. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/weekinreview/ideas-trends-one-state-two-state-red-state-blue-state.html

Indeed, there is some discussion on "how" red came to be the liberal's assignment of Republican. But in some ways, the discussion is almost meaningless, because history itself casts severe doubt on mere coincidence. And, I'm old enough to remember this history first-hand; I lived through it and have spent a life paying attention to all things political. First, the liberal media was breathtakingly bold in engaging in doublespoke in the worst of "1984" style, when trying to pin all the bad communist things Orwell explored in his book, as somehow a set of hidden objectives of the clearly anti-communist Reagan. Second, the communists took red for their own color, and throughout the 20th Century red became utterly synonymous with communist. (Gone was any memory of how the British Empire used red on its maps for the express purpose that all the British colonies would stand out with best possible contrast, no matter how small they each were.) Third, the liberal American media is hardly random in how its members protray the news, as revealed in any visit to "Communications" classes in universities, and as revealed in any lengthy exposure to media types in the workplace. Thus history itself reveals the utterly complete identification with "red" and "communist" by the end of the 20th Century and, despite liberal American media protests today, historical fact strongly refutes against any serious conclusion that the media's color choice was entirely or even mostly coincidence.

Yet, media color-assigning set aside, I was also merging that assignment of color to today's commentary on this article. The more immediate "doublespeak" I was also refering to was in comments posted here, comparing conservatives as equivalent to anything communists ever promoted. Upon review, I can now see that my double thrust in meaning was not entirely clear even when I posted "... as other comments indicate ..." and concluded with "The ironies abound." Thanks for pointing out the lack of clarity; I now see my comment was a bit too muddled to be clear on refering both to liberal media color assignment as well as also to the more immediate liberal doublespeak ironies posted in comments to this article.

Clarity and courtesy are always appreciated. Thank you.

I do not dispute your contention that red has historically been associated with communists/socialists. I was referring specifically to the modern practice of calling states and localities "red" and "blue".

I have a saying that I try to live by - Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. Substitute "conspiracy" and "chance" and it applies equally well.

Apparently the other guy's opinions are "polarized" (i.e. groupthink), and not to be given any credence. I presume that on "our side" the opinions are much more rational and thoughtful.

I encourage those who find these articles so offensive to come up with more interesting questions. Patch has gong to the trouble of arranging to get the opinions of some 100 people, many of the current legislators and other "insiders"on both "sides of the aisle". Surely their opinions are of some note.

I, for one, find both the articles (both Blue, and Red) to be interesting. The content and tone of the comments are particularly interesting. The comments are a window into the thinking of those who post. "Interesting" is not necessarily "inspiring".

Donald, why did you single me out? Is it because you can not change my views to your staunchly right-wing position? It won't happen...extremes, on either side, are bad for this country, period. Take a look at Washington D.C., if you doubt this.

My opinion (which I am entitled to) is that we would have more real and honest answers from informed registered voters, instead of the State's top brass in each party. I don't care what the top Democrats have to say publicly about Democrats, nor do I care what the top Republicans have to say publicly about Republicans - a person could guess ahead of time, and have almost the exact results as printed here. It's a foolish and uninformative task.

Donald wrote: "The content and tone of the comments are particularly interesting. The comments are a window into the thinking of those who post. "Interesting" is not necessarily "inspiring".

Donald, condescension is not interesting, informative, or persuasive....but now I see what's behind your comment - you are on the list of those polled!

"...extremes, on either side, are bad for this country, period."

The extreme elements tend to cause gridlock, which is a good thing. The media typically bemoans political gridlock as being the problem in Washington or St. Paul. It's not. When all legislative activity centers on compromise for the sake of "getting things done", we get trillion dollar bailouts, stimulus packages, and billion dollar stadiums.

Our republican style of government is really designed for consensus, not compromise. Thank goodness for the "extremists" who are not willing to go along to get along.

Donald, why doesn't Patch just ask the Catholic Church if its supports birth control (clearly no) or encourages pedophilia (most definitely yes). The responses to these questions simply offers no insight whatsoever and is a big waste of time. I have a hard time believing these reporters can't come up with something more interesting to write about, although it seems all these sites do now is run some stupid unscientific poll just for the purpose of engaging the regular cast of six readers into a week-long peeing contest. I also find it interesting that anytime I make a borderline inappropriate comment it gets censored in about 30 seconds and yet nobody affiliated with Patch will actually respond to any of my reasonable queries posted earlier. One last request, Donald, can you list what (if anything) you have actually learned from any of these red or blue surveys? Thanks in advance.

It is easy to offer criticism. Patch encourages people - like me - to blog here, and produce material for people to read. If you can do better than Patch has done, please do so. I will be one of the readers.

The comments I read here are harsh and not enlightening (nor inspiring). I challenge those who are so harshly critical of the work of the Patch reporters to do better, or at minimum to offer helpful suggestions of how the article(s) can be improved.

Markus, you and I could debate "extremes", but it's probably best to agree to disagree, as we have basically done this before.

Donald, I did offer up a suggestion...since most Americans do not sit firmly on the far right or far left, how about if Patch polls informed, registered voters who haven't run for office...

And Patch, yes I know, we as readers can put together our own blog's and/or stories and submit them. I am simply saying that if Patch wants to be more informative to their readers, this is not the way to do it...as has been noted several times.

Paul, I hope you agree that my First Amendment right to post my disappointment of these articles (and your approval) is as important as Patch's right to publish it...

I have to believe that part of the reason Patch allows such an open forum is to get feedback, which they are getting. I am not "insulted" or "offended", only disappointed that Patch didn't choose to poll the general public vs the party leaders.

Susan: Of course, as a conservative, I wholly support your right to expression as equal to everybody else's right to do the same. Obviously, opinions on things posted are far different than calling for lack of posting in the first place. To the degree that you stop short of calling for absence of publishing articles like this one, then obviously to that degree I support your right to expression; put another way: to the degree you admit others' rights to post as they see fit, then my "freedom of speech" remarks are to the same degree not addressing your comments. As an aside, I appreciate your politeness in asking for clarification!

I'm not quite sure that I told Patch not to publish, in fact, I took your advice and stated that I won't read any more of these. It's a shame because I really enjoy Patch and find some of the articles and comments to be informative and entertaining. I find that this series is neither, and hope Patch will go in a different (or additional) direction when reporting information regarding the upcoming and important election.

Paul, you would be wise to understand that a growing political base includes former Republicans who are fed up with the uber conservatives taking over the party and now consider themselves independents or moderate democrats. I would never advocate for censorship, but I fully support accountability for really stupid ideas. There's a big difference between can't and shouldn't. You clearly support bad ideas and I'll leave that up to others to determine what that actually says about you.

No, but I don't think those who are so involved with one side or the other are a true representation of the general electorate. I appreciate your explanation, Mike, but I don't think it has changed my opinion. I wasn't suggesting a standard "dial-a-voter poll", only a little more representation of what the real voting pool looks like, but, as pointed out, it is your publication and I will respect your right to publish what you find to be informative.

Mike, you claim to pursue "the true sentiment of conservatives and progressives on the ground in Minnesota", but the folks polled do not fit this description. I would guess if you were being honest you would admit that the amount of time and attention you spend polling people whose opinions are already fairly obvious is a complete waste of time, but let's face it, you're probably too far down that road to stop now. To even suggest that any insights gained from these GOP and DFL loyalists are more valuable than the dial-a-voter poll(s) is ridiculous and you're smarter than that. In a way, you're not much different than many of these politicos who lobby for things their party tells them to support rather than what they actually believe. Somehow I find that easier to swallow when it comes to a politician than an alleged journalist. I mean, shouldn't your goal be to tell us something we don't already know?

Donald wrote: ""The party" is not some vast, overarching machine that enforces a strict loyalty oath and tosses heretics into a dungeon." Not the dungeon, but Grover Norquist will certainly make it difficult for a reelection campaign of Republicans want to speak out against the ban on any new taxes or the expiration of current tax cuts.

Look, Donald, I truly do appreciate your input here on Patch, what I don't like is when you write with certainty how all people should live in the country, or when you imply that there should be no safety net for those who may truly need it. This is why I don't like this poll, I think, for the most part, that the movers and shakers (on either side) will fall in line publicly with the pubic position of their party. Yet when I talk to other registered Republicans who are knowledgeable on the issues, they seem to believe in a more moderate approach. If this makes me ignorant, then so be it, but let's keep in mind your condemnation of others who have pointed fingers and called names.

Do you honestly believe that, Donald? I think there are plenty of examples of consequences for those who have had the audacity to vote their conscience rather than down party lines. Perhaps you've forgotten what happened to a handful of Republicans who had the audacity to support a small increase of the gas tax a few years back. How did Pawlenty and the GOP respond and how did that work out for those brave folks? Also, I asked above but you chose not to show a modicum of respect and answer just what it was that you learned from a polling of people who pretty much all think alike on the major issues? Respectfully, Randy.

Yes. I try to avoid saying things I don't believe.

"If we do not hang together, we will surely hang separately".

Politics is like that, but there is some subtlety involved here, that is lost with the hyperbole and dismissive rhetoric.

Having run for office, and been working with the GOP the last few years, I think it is likely that I have had more "unguarded" conversations with Republicans than those who are so sure I am wrong. I know of no-one who is an unthinking team player. Everyone I know has passion and conviction. For that matter, my little bit of contact with DFL-ers leaves me with the same impression.

Do they downplay their personal opinions for the cameras? When talking to someone who is probably ideologically hostile? I suspect so. I do.

Do I think the DFL-ers are ideologically rigid on some things? yes.
I can certainly think of a few DFL litmus tests. Can't you?
Do I accuse them of being unthinking cogs in the DFL machine? no.

So we agree that Republicans and Democrats are pretty much the same type of people with some philosophical differences. I also noticed you have not answered some specific questions I posed and given that you try to avoid saying things you don't believe I will just assume that your silence is an admission of agreement with my assertions. Also, in response to your statement that "I know of no-one who is an unthinking team player" I will assume you have never met Kathy Lohmer, but in her defense it's only fair to mention that she is simply not smart enough to think for herself.

Useful conversations do not include ad hominem attacks.

Take your ball and go home whenever you run out of canned responses to direct questions, huh Donald. At least have the decency to wave a white flag when your conservative playbook has run out of comebacks. You stopped answering direct questions long before the alleged ad hominem attacks (truthful, though they were) began, but I guess this is a more graceful way to bow out of the otherwise productive discussion taking place.