<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Americans Say No To Hillary And Newt</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2007/03/18/americans-say-no-to-hillary-and-newt/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/03/18/americans-say-no-to-hillary-and-newt/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: bob in fl</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/03/18/americans-say-no-to-hillary-and-newt/#comment-274454</link>
		<dc:creator>bob in fl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/03/18/americans-say-no-to-hillary-and-newt/#comment-274454</guid>
		<description>By the poll numbers, if the election were held today &#38; Newt &#38; Hillary were the candidates, that means Hillary would win with 53% of the vote, with 1% voting "none of the above". That is assuming that the numbers for both actually mean " definitely would vote against". The article implies  otherwise.

Anyone else sick of voting against the worse of 2 evils? Wouldn't it be great if we COULD vote for "none of the above"? If neither candidate gets a majority, the runners up could run for a short campaign, with a vote on them in, like, 1 month. 

Hey, I'm being sarcastic; I know it is a dumb idea. But I am beginning to wonder if it is any worse than what we have now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the poll numbers, if the election were held today &amp; Newt &amp; Hillary were the candidates, that means Hillary would win with 53% of the vote, with 1% voting &#8220;none of the above&#8221;. That is assuming that the numbers for both actually mean &#8221; definitely would vote against&#8221;. The article implies  otherwise.</p>
<p>Anyone else sick of voting against the worse of 2 evils? Wouldn&#8217;t it be great if we COULD vote for &#8220;none of the above&#8221;? If neither candidate gets a majority, the runners up could run for a short campaign, with a vote on them in, like, 1 month. </p>
<p>Hey, I&#8217;m being sarcastic; I know it is a dumb idea. But I am beginning to wonder if it is any worse than what we have now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmy the Dhimmi</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/03/18/americans-say-no-to-hillary-and-newt/#comment-274351</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmy the Dhimmi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/03/18/americans-say-no-to-hillary-and-newt/#comment-274351</guid>
		<description>If you want to block gay marraige in your state in 2008, you should hope Hillary runs for president in order to motivate people to get to the polls.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you want to block gay marraige in your state in 2008, you should hope Hillary runs for president in order to motivate people to get to the polls.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.388 seconds -->
