Hillary Clinton’s campaign could fizzle with no sizzle

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

’All sizzle and no steak” is a longstanding American idiom denoting someone who is full of style and flash, but who lacks substance.

But what about the opposite: all steak and no sizzle? Well, that might be OK — at least you’re getting a steak. But presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign of late may be a case of the worst of both worlds: all fizzle and no sizzle.

While presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has had some recent stumbles, there is no doubt about one thing; among likely voters, the Trump brand sizzles.

Despite failing to unify the Republican Party going into the convention, and lagging Mrs. Clinton in fundraising by a mile, Mr. Trump is still polling strongly. Under normal circumstances a candidate trailing so far behind in the money race would be all but dead in the water going into the general election.

How could this possibly be? Mrs. Clinton is by far the more skilled politician and should ostensibly benefit from the tailwind created by a popular two-term Democratic incumbent in the White House.

On the surface the math is pretty simple: Mr. Trump leads among all white prospective voters, and he leads by double digits among white males. Mrs. Clinton leads among white females, but not by as large a margin as her Republican rival leads among white males. Mrs. Clinton also carries the so-called minority vote by a landslide.

This core calculus is not likely to change significantly before the election, and so it will come down to whose voters turn out more passionately Nov. 8.

If Mr. Trump’s performance in the Republican primary is any indication of how he will do in the election, he can expect a strong showing from his base. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, has struggled with the mobilization game. Although ultimately victorious, she floundered in some state Democratic nomination contests against a left-flank insurgency from Sen. Bernard Sanders. The Clinton campaign has yet to negotiate a truce in the internecine battle between Democratic Party officials and Sanders delegates.

While Mrs. Clinton has likely clinched the nomination, she hasn’t emerged unscathed. One wonders whether she can generate enough unity — and momentum — coming out of the Democratic convention to withstand a Trump train that, though slightly off track, continues to gather steam among voters, especially after the Orlando Florida terrorist attack.

Her own supporters have voiced concerns that the presumptive nominee can generate passion among the Democratic base, and, perhaps more importantly, win over fence-sitting independents and undecided voters. The problem comes down to one thing: likability. People respect Mrs. Clinton, or they loathe her. But her backers are not passionate about her, and her tepid campaigning style isn’t winning many raving fans.

Her campaign strategists have not found a way to increase her likability; instead, they’ve essentially started circling their wagons for now — sending out multiple television ads and fundraising emails attacking Donald Trump. Mr. Trump’s likability is also low among significant segments of the electorate, but it’s hard to see Mrs. Clinton winning a battle of the uglies.

For all her credentials, Mrs. Clinton lacks the “it factor.” Unlike Mr. Trump or even President Obama, her negatives are not countered by legions of ardent fans who are willing to get out and evangelize for her. She operates very much at the machine level, orchestrating her campaign through party mechanisms with which she is familiar and comfortable.

Why can’t she just let her hair down and have a bit of fun? Unlike other politicians at her level, most notably her husband, Hillary does not make it look easy. She may be so hemmed in by her years of on-the-record positions that she cannot maneuver effectively against a foe who has no problem reversing on a dime.

There is much to be said for holding your fire, saving your powder for the real fight. But Mrs. Clinton has been so lacking in fireworks that she’s not even inspiring the base. She has withstood a withering fight against Mr. Sanders to win the nomination. But there is a real concern among Clinton insiders as to whether she will inherit the approval — and, more importantly — the passion, of the Sanders movement. A negotiated treaty with the Sanders camp is all but a fait accompli, but the prospect of Mr. Sanders himself getting out and stumping for her with any of his customary gusto seems remote.

Mrs. Clinton’s problems in many ways mirror Mr. Trump’s successes. While the presumptive GOP nominee can claim the rights to the popular movement, but not the party, Mrs. Clinton has the party but not the movement.

This election will be a litmus test as to whether teams or players make championships. Mr. Trump has shown himself to be game despite constant communication miscues and intraparty war that has raged from almost the moment he announced his candidacy. Mrs. Clinton has her party firmly in her corner, but seemingly lacks that breakaway quality we used to call sizzle.

• Armstrong Williams is manager / sole owner of Howard Stirk Holdings I & II Broadcast Television Stations and the 2016 Multicultural Media Broadcast Owner of the Year. Follow him on Twitter @arightside.