The slogan “Ready for Hillary” is to political campaigning what alcohol swabs and a tetanus shot are to healthy living. Sterile, mechanical and unimaginative, it forces us to begrudgingly accept a supposed inevitability. It is difficult to get excited about this preventative measure that we are told will guard against what could go wrong. Do you want to get sick? Do you want Trump to be president? Of course not; get the shot, vote for Hillary. Don’t think about it; you are ready.
The Clinton campaign, in fact, has long been saddled with the impression that it is forcing its candidate upon us. Hillary has often said something akin to, “Isn’t it time for a woman president?” This not only comes off as pushy (stressing change for its sake alone), but since that statement is devoid of an actual argument, it is quite difficult to sell. By trying to convince us in vague terms that we are “ready,” she is forcing the issue in an arena that is more conducive to bottom-up, populist messages. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” conjures widespread feelings of eagerness, potential, and of a new status quo. Similarly, Obama’s 2008 message of hope and change and “Yes We Can” were everything that “Ready for Hillary” and “I’m With Her” are not, as the latter both idolize the candidate instead of the people. Odd, it seems, as Hillary’s campaign has attacked what it claims is Trump’s “single man solution” approach. Even Hillary’s campaign logo is self-reflective: a blocky ‘H’ that brings to mind a hospital sign — and thus, again, her bland, preventative “run out the clock” strategy. Most importantly, when Obama and Trump ran for office they tapped into a sentiment — an integral component for any politician to connect with the electorate. What does “Ready for Hillary” tap into?
Recommended Stories
Furthermore, Hillary’s incessant pandering and frequent reliance on deliberative focus-groups only accentuates her perceived lack of authenticity. She comes off as a quasi-robotic figure, as if her actions are programmed by advisors. In her DNC acceptance speech, even the common phrase “you know” resembled IBM’s Watson. Her body language is the result of meticulous coaching that only accentuates her inorganic vibe. In many instances it appears as though she first thinks, “How should I act in this situation?” and then performs that function, and that incongruity is easily detectable. She tries to act normal but something is clearly amiss. Hillary is a wormhole-ridden clockwork orange: organic on the outside, mechanical inside, but with a damaged membrane separating the two.
Her opponent’s ability to self-promote, on the other hand, comes naturally and is therefore superior. Unsurprisingly, the man whose name adorns hotels and casinos is an expert at minimizing his competition through mass media. In the primaries he branded his rivals with linguistic kill shots: “Low Energy Jeb,” “Little Marco,” and “Lyin’ Ted.” And “Crooked Hillary” has been even more effective.
Trump’s tactics lured Hillary into playing his game, but he is playing chess and her checkers. She tried “Presumptuous Donald” — it bombed. (It has too many syllables and many people don’t know what it means.) Then came: “Love Trumps Hate.” That is a muddled message that works best visually, but to a limited extent even then. When you hear it, for instance, you could interpret it as an affirmation (“[I] love Trump’s hate”), a command (“[You should] love Trump’s hate”), or since the words “love” and “Trump” are right next to each other, you can associate those two words — the opposite of Hillary’s intention. However you interpret it, you think of the opponent: Trump. The same applies to “Stronger Together”; it is no mystery which candidate markets himself as the strong one. In short, Hillary is too reactionary; she lets Trump define her before she can define herself.
But it is not just what Hillary says but how she says it. As exemplified by her acceptance speech, one of her unshakeable problems as a public speaker is becoming too aggressive and sharp in speeches that are optimistic on paper. These relapses in her tone are off-putting, grating (nagging, perhaps?) and make us listeners feel like we are being yelled at for doing something wrong rather than persuaded. It is likely an attempt on her part to sound more authoritative and therefore more masculine, which makes sense considering the nature of the job. But when the pitch of her voice goes up, the public’s receptiveness goes down. If those of us in our living rooms cannot ignore how she sounds, then what she says will not resonate enough to make us get off our couches and vote for her.
Hillary does hold a ground game advantage which may help with voter outreach, but she nevertheless fails in a big way when it comes to selling herself through social media and online in general. For instance, a search of Google trends over the last year shows that “Make America Great Again” dominates each of Hillary’s three lackluster slogans when it comes to popularity. This explains in a quantifiable way the aforementioned lack of outreach potential that her slogans possess.
Similarly, a summary of searches for each candidate’s merchandise indicates a decisive Trump advantage. The most searched Hillary shirt, it turns out, is the “Hillary for Prison” one, with 1,900 average monthly searches. Whereas the regular “Hillary shirt” got only 720 hits, “Trump shirt” reached 12,100; “Hillary yard sign” was 390, “Trump yard sign” amassed 3,600. These metrics are one means of showing how people are less enthused by Hillary’s campaign than by Trump’s.
The Clinton campaign, in more ways than one, just cannot seem to gather momentum like Trump can. Throughout the primary season, the Republican nominee capitalized on countless favorable polls by spreading them throughout social media, in so doing marketing himself as a winner. He has continued this practice through the summer. The American public is most responsive to horse race coverage above all else, and Trump has tapped into people’s desire to support not just any winner, but a rebellious one at that, as he has been written off numerous times by the mainstream media. Hillary, in contrast, just does not have the same touch.
This election is not about the economy, but culture; not people’s minds, but their guts. This is about persuasion. Trump has been so successful because his message targets sentiment above all else. In response, Hillary has tried to manufacture her own appeal — but therein lies the problem. It is a tall order to talk people out of something that they feel.