I think I would know if I was talking about the percentage of votes or the actual votes. Besides, when Reagan was elected there were only 4 billion people in the world, now there are 6 billion. Bush only got 11 million more votes than Reagan, doesn't that say something?
AH! I see the deeper meaning! When you said George Bush didn't get more votes than Reagan - when you said Reagan got more votes than Bush that meant that you have to factor in not only the amount of votes they actually got, but also the percentage of the votes they received, the amount of people who actually voted relative to the population of the world, all these things - and then try to subjectively determine which one you think REALLY got more votes. Yeah.
This, as Squid showed, was wrong. You didn't say that the percentage of the vote mattered at all - there's nothing in this statement that implied that we should look at the percentage of the vote - AT ALL.
This, as Squid showed, was wrong. You didn't say that the percentage of the vote mattered at all - there's nothing in this statement that implied that we should look at the percentage of the vote - AT ALL.
In my mind, it seems obvious to me that the message I was sending was about the percentage, but I suppose it would be difficult to tell what it was I was exactly talking about; that's why I said I should've clarified.
