Within the past month, Obama
---- has refused the Keystone pipeline, a project completely approved by all five states through which it is to pass as well by the wacko's in the EPA. In fact, two different studies have been approved by the EPA. The permitting process has taken nearly 3 years at a cost to private investor's of 2 billion dollars. Virtually all the construction jobs are union jobs, but the private sector workplace will benefit, as well. The completed project will not involve any federal funds. This decision puts a damper on future investment decisions while appeasing a radical base that could not care less about the creation of jobs.
---- has recently decided to stall oil drilling projects (shale), all EPA approved, until after the election, a decision that threatens the creation of 200,000 jobs. Again, these projects are funded by private money, fully approved and are major job creators . . . . BUT, all are very unpopular with the radicalized environmental crowd.
---- has made the "Buffet rule" a major theme in his re-election strategy. Obama argues that because millionaires make more today than they did ten years ago (there are actually fewer millionaires today than before), this, somehow, effects "me." His solution to this idiot claim of economic disparity? He proposes to raise taxes on investment profits (dividends) by 100%, moving that tax rate from 15% to 30%. He wants us all to believe that this move will bring balance to the rich/middle class disparity when, in fact, it will solve nothing in that regard. Individuals in the middle class will not receive any of this money and investment capital will dry up. Higher taxes, under an Obama Administration, simply allow the Slickmeister to spend more. No politician in history has ever proposed such a radical tax increase on investment capital, an idea that is not even supported by members of his own party.
These three examples present a rather startling view of Obama's campaign strategy. Simply put, he has decided to double down on a failed Left Wing agenda in the belief that his [Leftist] popularity will increase and victory will be his, all without having to appeal to the moderate and conservative population. In 2008, ten states, all with Republican voting histories, turned the tables and voted for Obama. In today's political economy, all ten are considered "battleground states," or "toss-up" voting blocks. Without these states, Obama loses 117 electoral votes and the election. It is this sort of circumstance Obama believes he can reproduce, in spite of the fact that we all know who he is. Understand this, the fact that he was a complete unknown, allowed for his '08 election more so than any other consideration. Many analysts believe that the phrase, "familiarity breeds discontent" has never been more true than in this case.
Point of post: if Obama loses the election, it just might be more his "fault" than anyone's. Time will tell. Let's just hope that he continues to double down on that which is grossly unpopular.