What percentage of the vote will Obama lose because of the following "issues"?

[J. J.]

-Him refusing public funding.

Some, because it might make him ultimately look to big donors and it was perceived as a flip-flop.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It playing into the elistist perception.  Maybe 1-2 points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possibly 21 electoral votes of PA (though Clinton on the ticket will put those back into play).  It may hurt him MI and OH as well.  I've known some dyed in wool Clinton/Gore voters that will vote for McCain over it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

possibly MI (and FL is gone).  It gives people MI a reason not to vote for him.

[J. J.]

I forgot to mention what percentage in Ohio and Colorado are going to vote against Obama out of disgust at his arrogance for campaigning in North Dakota and Alaska.

J.J.?

No, but I would note the perception of both elitism and arrogance on Obama's part.

I would point out that campaigning in 50 states was tried by Nixon in 1960 (and abandoned in 1968 and 1972).

I do think Obama is quite correct in putting the money and manpower into OH (and more of the Rustbelt).

[J. J.]

I agree that Nixon's 50 state strategy hurt him, but not because of any perceived arrogance that turned voters off....rather the fact that he took a crucial campaign day and a half in the final week to go to Alaska to fulfill his pledge, as he was afraid of being perceived as dishonest and distrustful if he didn't (hard to believe anyone could ever think of Nixon as dishonest of course, but hey....).

It probably won him Alaska, but if he had gone to Illinois instead, it might've won that state for him.

If Obama has the resources to do it, I think it makes a lot more sense to run at least some ads in every state, rather than spend 10 gazillion dollars in Ohio and Colorado. Law of diminishing returns and all that.

Don't get wrong.  I don't Obama is arrogant for proclaiming a 50 state campaign.  I think he is stupid for doing it.  Either he will have keep the promise and waste time and resources in UT or back off, looking insincere.

I think there are things that make Obama look both elitist and arrogant, but this isn't one of them.

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It playing into the elistist perception.  Maybe 1-2 points.

Wait, you actually believe that his logo or accepting in a stadium will cost him votes?!

I think that both reinforces the image that Obama is elitist, and that image will cost him votes.

There is a good historical example.  In 1992, GHW Bush was campaigning in a grocery store and expressed surprise on how bar codes could read products.  This was widely reported and helped reinforce the image that Bush was out of touch, and elitist.  He wasn't like the "common people," or so the story went.

Now, in reality, you don't really expect the President or VP to be making runs to local 7-11 for beef jerky, but it still created the image that Bush was elitist. 

Obama has a similar image problem.  The logo, in a minor way, helps create the image.  The stadium has the potential for really doing it.  There have been a string of events that have helped create this image of Obama, and it is ultimately a political negative.

[J. J.]

You think even 1-2% of the electorate would even have seen the logo (he only had it for one speech, right?), and the entirety of that 1-2% will vote against him for it when they would not have otherwise?  That seems like a tall claim.

No, but you will notice that I've been referring to grouped things.  The seal alone has very little impact, but it goes on the list of things that make Obama look elitist and arrogant.  He was right in dropping it immediately.

If you are running for president, you do not want to look arrogant and elitist.