Why We Are A Republic, And Not A Democracy

Looks like you're backtracking again.

 

Read it again. Slowly.

 

I'm not sure how else to put this other than to, again, point to my post:

This is it ^^ This is all there is.

They go to states with large populations because that's how presidential elections work in this country.

 

In the fantastically scenario wherein ND and SD are the only swing states, they still would not go there.

Because ... the don't have large populations.

 

"In no scenario is South Dakota or North Dakota getting any attention."

"I didn't say that other states would not get attention, but that they don't get attention now (because there are swing states with large populations)."

 

I know you desperately want to hypothetical a situation wherein we have a system that makes these states appealing to visit from a candidate's perspective, but it's simply not how it works in this country.

 

Looks like missed the word "other."

That's why I asked you to read it slowly.

 

Then I guess you agree with this statement:

Feel free to hit that agree button whenever you want.

 

Actually, it sounds like you agree with me because, drumroll please, here it is again from many pages back:

You can hit that agree button on a post from a day ago.

 

Oh I'm sorry, I guess North Dakota and South Dakota are these unique states where no general rules apply to them. I never said anything about the "other" small states, just North and South Dakota.

Such hackery.

 

Still waiting on whether you agree with this statement:

And still waiting:

 

Of course! It's 100% consistent with this post I made a few pages back, sorry if I never brought it up before:

I appreciate you no longer doing straw man arguments. Thank you for that.

No idea what this means. They're small states. They won't get attention. What else do you need?

 

Great, you agree with this statement: "If the only states that were swing states were small states, I guess no state would receive any attention in presidential elections."

You have proven that you are either a complete nincompoop or you're just too stubborn to ever admit you were wrong.

Either way, my work here with you is done.

 

Ah, the ad hominem approach. A sure sign you've made a compelling counterargument.

 

You have to realize that in a scenario wherein the election is easily decided by the other 500+ EVs, resources would be better suited doing literally anything else other than going to South Dakota, right? Right? Please tell me this.

 

Like you conjured this absolutely fantastical scenario that still doesn't produce the outcome you want it to. And then you got grumpy and literally called me a "nincompoop." Time to hit the showers, man.

 

To be fair, what would you call a person who believes that a presidential candidate would ignore every state just because the only states up for grabs are small?

I'm sorry, I try to avoid ad hominem, but when you say something that stupid you're leaving me with rather limited options.

Look at the bright side, I think it's that you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong, not that you're an idiot.

The old saying goes, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But I think I'd add, "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by ego or stubbornness."

 

But if those other 500+ EVs aren't on the table to win or lose, if they aren't swing states, what else WOULD you have to do?

Obviously, if the Dakotas wouldn't be enough to sway the election one way or another, if you can't win the election by winning all the swing states, you would have to make efforts in flipping somewhere else. But now you're adding hypotheticals to my hypothetical to get the answer you want.

 

Second. We cant stand to see Spurs and Tebow fighting around here.