No it isn't. 40% of the US lives on the coast, which means well over 50% are within 100 miles of a coast.

It would be like going to most of Europe, and then someone complaining you didn't see the "real" Europe because you skipped Portugal and Croatia.

There's a big difference between going to NYC and LA vs visiting small towns close to coast.

And visiting a one-sided 50% is still missing a big portion. That's like saying that if you visit Germany/France/UK, you've seen all the europe. Nordics and East be damned because it's less than 50% of population so who cares. But then you end up with very skewed view of what europe is.

It's not 50%, it's well over 50%. there's no hard numbers on this, but I would guess it's 70-80%.It's more than most people who live in the US have seen of it.

The ones with a skewed view of the US are the ones that think small towns are representative of the country in any major way.

Small towns as in the rest of US but NYC and LA?

Sorry, but I hate this when people claim they „travelled europe“ but turns out they've seen the usual Paris/Rome/London/etc central areas. No, that means you visited those cities. Getting to know a region requires visiting diverse places.