I 100% disagree.
Having a mobile SoC with just higher clocks is not efficient... The Switch has demonstrated this.

Remember a TV is a larger canvas than a mobile display, you see the limitations in the visual effects far more readily, thus you do tend to need more than just higher clockspeeds to translate it better to a bigger display.
You need more functional units, more bandwidth, more everything... The Switch doesn't do that, so more often than not, Switch games tend to look exactly the same as portable mode, but just at a higher resolution, but still often sub-Full HD... So they look soft, muddy and lack detail.

Sony and Microsoft realized this last generation, hence the Xbox One X and Playstation 4 Pro... And continued down that path with Xbox Series X and S and the Playstation 5/5 Pro.

You do need more than just clockspeeds.

I'm really confused by this statement. You're saying PAOerfulone is wrong?? ummm, huh?? Everyone knows they shipped S/V as a buggy messy. Game Freak has refused (so far) to give themselves more time to make the mainline pokemon gen games despite moving from weak handhelds to the Switch. So unfortunately when they went to try to make a big open world game that meant their schedule was way too short and they released a mess. Had nothing to do with the Switch, had everything to do with the fact that they didn't have enough time/resources go into the game. If that game had released year later like it should have been it wouldn't have had the issues it had.

I don't get what you are even referring to as a "baseless assertion" or "never happened". Dude just accurately described the pokemon situation, a situation everyone is well aware of.

The audience for a PS/Xbox console isn't the same as for a Nintendo device though.

The fact the Switch is one of the highest selling consoles ever shows most folks are fine with it. Investing all the R&D, money, and other complications of a whole separate system just to output the same games with better settings would be a waste of resources, because the people who care about better graphics are already well served by Playstation and aren't going to buy another console just to play portable games in 4K.

A hybrid already provides both TV and portable play, having separate devices for both is just unnecessary.

And yet I haven't touched the Switch since finishing TotK...

I would buy a standalone version and more games for the system if it looked less 'fuzzy' on TV.

Us enthusiasts who care about this stuff are a small fraction of the overall audience though.

Very few people would have bought an entire new console just to play TOTK with a sharper picture, most are either happy to play it as is, or if they care that much about graphics, they wouldn't want to play TOTK in the first place since even at 4K it will never look as good as a AAA PS5 game because it has to run on mobile hardware.

I am saying that given more powerful hardware, Violet/Scarlett would run better.
And it does.
See: Emulation, Switch overclocking.

The bugs would obviously still exist as that's far removed from hardware performance, that a developer competency issue.

But even outside of Gamefreak there is a long list of Switch games that run poorly unless... You overclock your console or throw it through an Emulator on PC.
See: Digital Foundries countless analysis on the topic with titles like Breath of the Wild, Tears of the Kingdom showcases marked performance improvements.

I would argue a large percentage of all consoles share a common userbase as games like Fortnite, Roblox and Minecraft etc' tend to dominate play time on each console.

It's also a poor argument that "sales means people are fine with it".

I am a Switch owner, I own multiple Switch consoles, I am a Switch owner, I contributed to the Switch being one of the best selling consoles of all time...  And I am not fine with it's hardware capabilities, in-fact even before the console released I wasn't happy with it, it could have been 50% faster and use the same amount of power by adopting Pascal instead of Maxwell for it's GPU architecture.
I am happy with the hardware feature set and it's efficiency, I am not happy with it's total performance.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the console or haven't had a blast with some games like Links Awakening, Breath of the Wild and so forth... But if the only criticism I can level against a platform is poor performance? Then that's a small list of complaints in the grand scheme of things having gamed on consoles with notoriously poor performance in games like on the Playstation 3, Nintendo 64, Xbox One etc'.

Having separate devices means that I don't need to compromise graphics in order to include features that I will never use like: A dock, Joycons, Display, Battery and more. - They can use that extra budget for faster hardware... Or even offer a lower price.

More choice is NEVER a bad thing for consumers.

It goes to show it's a legitimate issue for many gamers considering HDMI "upscalers" exist to try and clean up the Switch's poor output.

I never said it would be a bad thing for consumers; heck, I would buy such a device myself, as I only play in docked mode.

What I'm saying is more that it probably wouldn't be worth it for Nintendo, because such a device would require a huge investment from them while probably selling very little.

Well according to everyone on this site it's already competing with PS and Xbox. In fact, it's not just competing, it's thrashing them! So, the people here really aren't going to appreciate that question. They think that once that switch slides into that dock, it turns into a monstrous and powerful console that is the envy of Sony and Microsoft, even it was only powerful enough to run one big third party release all year. Sonic shadow generations. Doesn't matter to anyone on here though. Who needs third party games?

From a personal perspective for sure the latter though it would be a bad business move for Nintendo of course. With how strong Nintendo's brands are right now I do think a conventional home console from them would have a good shot at outselling the NES since Mario, Zelda, Smash, Pokemon, Animal Crossing etc on the same system makes more of a difference now than it ever has. That would still be small compared to the Switch's success though.

I've been thinking about this approach for quite some time, but I think Nin would choose to do the dock or the home console. If Nin has decided to unify their products as much as possible, then they probably won't want to do the dock and console. Switch Lite was a bit of a surprise, but it did make sense because it's not deviating that much from the Switch hybrid. I think if Nin tries to do both that the home console will get the bulk of the sales and that the performance dock won't sell very well. Maybe I'm wrong though. 

If Nin were going to make a Switch 2 hybrid, Lite, and console, then the next question would be, does Nin make a more expensive, powerful enough home console, so it get's the majority of third party games, or do they go for a cheaper console, by just taking the internals of the hybrid and putting them in a Wii-ish sized case (or smaller)?

This I'm unsure of. The cheaper console would bring in new customers who simply couldn't afford Switch or Switch 2, but will those who want a Nin home console again, yet want a powerful enough model to play most third party games, settle for a cheaper, mostly Nin only console? For me personally, if Nin makes a powerful console, it really needs to be something special, otherwise I'll stick with PS. However, if I stuck with PS, and there was a cheap enough Switch 2 home console, I'd certainly entertain the idea of getting one eventually.