Yes.
You shouldn't be able to win by bouncing off a few targeted people in Whocaresville, Some Rural State That Happens To Be Agreeable This Time.
A campaign should be forced to go everywhere to make their case.
No. I like that you have to win a lot of people in a lot of different places instead of just a lot of people in a few walled off cities. But that's just me.
Clearly.
Since I've been here, you've gone from being this socially conservative populist with his heart in the right place to no different than Lief, all in the name of HATING your opposition. Sad, to say the least.
Happy Thanksgiving. Electoral College was designed exactly because the Founders didn't want our candidates taking the disgusting attitude you just conveyed toward "Who Caresville."
Oh, would you have been happier if I said "You shouldn't be able to win off a few Clusterf&*ked, Filthy Cities with X Percentage of Y Demographics with a bunch of identity pandering ploys"? Because that is also true too.
The point still stands that candidates end up more and more encouraged to write off areas and focus entirely on "battlegrounds".
Also, you might call my attitude disgusting, but I think
using people in those rural areas for mere Electoral candy and then ditching them is far worse.
Finally, since not all rural areas work out the same, but pretty much all of them are off worse than the cities, the EC forces a lot of one or two specific kind of rural areas to get overemphasized at literally everyone else's expense.
If trump really was supposed to champion blue collar towns, he should've been forced into places like Eastern Oregon, Inland NorCal, much of New Mexico, etc.
If Clinton were about minority majorities, she should've been forced to at least try Northern Alaska, dip into The Back Belt of the Deep South, visit some reservations in the Dakotas, etc.
Poll
