You are responding to a more defensible statement than what was made above, as it said "Americans" and not "voters".

Turnout was 55.7% and Trump got 46.1%, which means he got about 25.7% of the possible voters. Clearly not "almost" a majority.

And of course there are plenty of Americans who aren't eligible to vote.

Yes, but I thought that interpreting "Americans" as including those not eligible to vote was too uncharitable in context and possibly in violation of the HN injunction to respond to the strongest possible interpretation of a comment.

I was going for "the strongest possible, but no stronger".

On the one hand, I think it's a relevant bit of perspective.

On the other hand, I heartily approve of the application of charity.

Maybe there was a line you could walk that does both, pointing it out as an aside rather than as direct criticism of what was presented? shrug Keep up the good commenting :)