> As a result Trump has more votes than any candidate in Republican history. Without context, that doesn't mean much. Did he receive more votes than any prima

> As a result Trump has more votes than any candidate in Republican history. Without context, that doesn't mean much. Did he receive more votes than any primaries candidate in Republican history? Yes. But given the fact that these primaries received more votes than any other primaries, that loses significant power. When you look at numbers, it's easy to pick the result that makes a specific case. That's what the author is doing here. In fact, as an exercise, it's easy to make the opposite case - that he had extremely low support compared to previous primaries - by using the same numbers. Look at the table right under that quote. In 2012, Romney had 10,048,134 votes, compared to Trump's 13,406,108. Advantage Trump? Well, if you take a look at the total numbers - 19,272,346 vs 30,335,825, respectively - it means Trump had 44% of the votes, while Romney had 52%. Similar lower percentage numbers repeat when you compare him to other candidates from that table. He ended up winning by getting the right delegates, but not the number of votes. So while saying "Trump has more votes than any candidate in Republican history" is correct, saying "Trump received the lowest winning percentage of votes from any Republican candidate since 2000" is also correct (the table stops at 2000 so not sure about other years).