'Closing The Deal': Campaign Theme To Watch

If the Pennsylvania primary offered up a singular question that the press can now pose, over and over again, for at least the next two weeks, it is this one: Why can't Barack Obama "close the deal?" Naturally, we can expect the press to wield this question like a club, directed squarely at the American people's mounting sense of dread and ennui, but the prospect of repetition does not diminish its validity. Coffee, as they say, is for closers, and Obama leaves Pennsylvania looking very under-caffeinated.

The question has legs, and here's the big reason why. As unlikely as the prospect was, a Pennsylvania win represented the last significant opportunity for Obama, within the context of a single primary evening, to chase Hillary Clinton from the race. And Clinton had more to do with setting up that set of circumstances than anybody else. Right now, there is a single, guiding rationale behind her candidacy: she wins states that her campaign has identified with terms like "important," "battleground" (yes, in this imagining, California, New York and Massachusetts somehow become "battleground" states), and "swing." If Obama had pulled the upset in Pennsylvania - "closed the deal," as it were - he would have, to use one of Clinton's favorite terms, "obliterated" that rationale.

Now, looking ahead, there doesn't seem to be much of an opportunity for Clinton to advance her rationale. She's got competitive states ahead, and it looks like she's going to achieve a blowout margin in Kentucky, but the campaign will be hard pressed to attach the same importance to the future contests as they do to Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Clinton camp, however, can accept the possibility of their guiding rationale falling into a state of inertia, and they'll counter it by ramping up the rhetoric on Florida and Michigan. And critically, there does not seem to be another opportunity on the table for Obama to close the deal by knockout. It is possible that combined wins in North Carolina (a likely Obama win) and Indiana (a plausible Obama win) could put significant pressure on Clinton to drop out - and one can certainly predict that such a win will lead the press to say "Hey, maybe he can close the deal!" - but it won't tear down her campaign's thesis.

Additionally, Clinton gets a boost in Pennsylvania because of the money that the Obama camp spent to close down the margins in Pennsylvania. The Clinton campaign will talk up getting "outspent," because it allows them to say, "Hey, our ideas beat your ads."

Still, counterarguments abound. Obama is still the frontrunner, he's finally starting to gain ground in some clear Clinton demographics, and if the remaining superdelegates are simply waiting for a pretext to emerge for them to rubber-stamp, Obama remains on the inside track. And he's in this position because he did close the deal in some critical states back on Super Tuesday - Connecticut and Missouri come to mind - as well as a Potomac primary sweep.

More pointedly, there's a seeming shallowness to the whole "close the deal" argument - it only really comes up if we're talking about white voters. Of course, Obama pretty much hoisted himself halfway up this particular petard - "Bittergate" is the thing that is giving this legs. But rarely is it asked: "Why can't Clinton close the deal with African-American voters?" She's done worse and worse with this core constituency as time has passed. This is critical as North Carolina looms: will a "closed deal" for Obama in the Tarheel State not "count" because it's too black?

And finally, there's a grim reality to the money situation that gets ignored amid all the clatter and hype about how much Obama spent in Pennsylvania. Obama couldn't fund himself a knockout notch in the Keystone State, but it's not like he drove off the used car lot in a lemon. Money funds the long game, and Obama was smart to spend as much as he did there. If it takes four bucks to compel Clinton to spend one, you spend the four - because if you can bleed her cash reserves in a state she was projected at one point to win by twenty, the road ahead looks a lot brighter. Yeah, the money spent is going to get spun, but if you ask me, skint trumps spin. As a colleague pointed out to me last night, everytime you hear the Clinton team use the word "outspent," you can substitute the word "outraised."

Nevertheless, this "close the deal" concept is effectively stalemated, encased in amber, because Obama's got hardly anything ahead that truly looks like it's going to be the environment for a knockout blow. A TKO possibility remains in two weeks, but in all likelihood, we're looking at this deal finally getting closed by the decision of the superdelegates. 'Cause only one thing counts in this world: get them to sign on the line which is dotted.

Comments

[VA2008]

A better question is with all of Hillary's so-called experience and greatness, why hasn't she been able to close the deal?

[Gould123]

What happen to Hillary Clinton closseing the deal in FEBURARY like she said? I can't figure out how they turn this against Obama? Seems to me all along the Clintons kept saying they were going to close the deal in this state or that! After loseing a state they's say that state didn't matter any how! Soon Indiana isn't going to matter at all if she lose's it! Also, N.C isn't going to matter for sure! This is so sad! The Clintons goes to court for Fraud on April 25 th on the Peter Paul case and the media or huffington are not even carrying a whisper about it! If it was Obama they's be wipeing the floors with him already on that one! The Clintons tried to bury the 5 million she loaned herself in her papers when she filed with the FEC and they called her on that, but she didn't even report The Millions Peter Paul raised for her senate race, and fair well fund raiser. They also threw Peter Paul under the bus in the process and he's sueing for 17 million dollars. And I still haven't seen the list of their donors to the Clinton Presidential Library! i just can't figure it? Every little scrap is being thrown out on the Obama side----------Yet once again the clintons who play dirty, are dirty in lawful dealilngs get a free pass! Whats up with that?

[katefranklin]

There are 30 states where Hillary has failed to "close the deal". Hillary had the endorsement of Mayor Nutter. Why couldn't she "close the deal" with African-Americans in Philly? Hillary's got the "First African-American President" and Magic Johnson on her team; both going to great lengths on her behalf in African-American communities. Why can't she "close the deal"? Better yet, maybe we should ask why does she (with all the help from her strong ties to the Washington political establishment) not even have a "deal to close"?

[JDen]

Finally, people who have addressed the question I've been asking my television every time a pundit asks why Obama can't close the deal...why can't Senator Clinton close the deal?

I did a little research last night and Obama did not lead in a single notable poll (shy one anomaly last summer) until February 2nd of this year. He came onto the Democratic Presidential nominee stage with one inspiring convention speech and one year in the Senate. He has gone up against two formidable and well known politicians and the impressive political machine they created. As Chuck Todd said today, if this was election night, the networks would call it for Obama. To me, that's beyond impressive.

This was always Senator Clinton's race to lose.

There's a record smashing pie filled with voters that's being carved up and once the nomination is locked up, most of those record numbers will follow the nominee into the General Election.

It's all good.