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

[Lunar]

Obama's "bitter" comments clearly leave a distaste in people's mouthes. While it's not an issue like abortion where many voters will say "I'm voting for X because he's pro-life," it's part of a larger macro-issue of personality.  Some people WILL vote against Obama because he seems like an overly-educated, out-of-touch, elitist, black man.  These comments reinforce this perception and will hurt him somewhat, but are hardly fatal anywhere, as we can see in the current polls.

Most of the rest of these non-issues either help Obama, are non-factors, or contribute insignificantly towards this macroissue of personality.

[Lunar]

Obama has simply promised paid staff in every state.  In many states, that will constitute one low-paid staffer for publicity's sake (it won't hurt to improve local fundraising, support congressional races, support national '50 state' publicity, or improve national poll numbers).  He's only really committing to campaign/fundraise in probably a third to half that number of states.

It's awfully bold for you to preemptively declare, as a random dude, that Obama's macro strategy is unquestionably flawed.  Surely there is at least SOME non-stupid justification, however flawed, for his reasoning such that many non-stupid advisers (who propelled his win in the primaries against the inevitable Clinton)  would suggest such a strategy?

I mean, I'm not saying it's the right strategy yet, but, yeah, it seems kind of cocky to declare that it's 'stupid' before we see what form it takes.  Obama has a lot of non-stupid people advising him to do this inherently stupid idea, why?   Shear ignorance?  A bluff?   Shear arrogance?  How much they commit to every state will probably still depend on their internal polling's calculation of odds * the electoral college value of the state, I imagine.  Just because Obama has promised to appear in Omaha and Alaska does not mean that he will, will do so more than one time, won't do it just to help the local senate candidate (AK), or isn't just doing it to improve his odds in a neighboring state in the media market (IA).

[Lunar]

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.