‘All sizzle and no steak,’ is a long-standing American idiom denoting someone who is full of style and flash, but 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 Hillary Clinton’s campaign of late may be a case of the worst of both worlds: all fizzle and no sizzle.
While 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 Hillary Clinton in fundraising by a mile, 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? Clinton is by far the more skilled politician and should ostensibly benefit from the tailwind created by a popular two-term Democratic Presidential incumbent.
On it’s surface the math is pretty simple; Trump leads among all white prospective voters, and he leads by double digits among white males. Clinton leads among white females, but not by as large a margin as Trump leads among white males. Clinton 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 who’s voters turn out more passionately.