In the wake of the Democratic convention, some foot-in-mouth comments by Donald Trump, and a poll bounce for Hillary Clinton, much of the political class has decided that the presidential race is all but over. But across most of America, voters are at least as apt to be swayed by issues as by a convention's production values or a candidate's gaffes—and essentially every issue favors Trump.

Why, then, is Clinton developing such a lead in the polls? Because she, Trump, and the media all seem to agree upon one thing—that the issues are to be avoided. Clinton and the media avoid the issues because they know she's hurt by them. Trump avoids the issues for reasons that are harder to ascertain—perhaps because he doesn't fully realize how much they benefit him or perhaps just because he finds it easier and more enjoyable to talk about something else. But if he were to start talking policy, his electoral fortunes might turn around.

Start with immigration—the defining issue of Trump's unlikely triumph in the GOP race. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born has already surpassed the percentage during the great waves of immigration in 1880 or 1920. That percentage, 13.6 percent, has almost tripled since 1970 (from 4.7 percent) and is on course to exceed 15 percent within a decade. A Gallup poll last year found that 60 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with current immigration levels, with more than five times as many wanting to see those levels decreased (39 percent) as increased (7 percent).

Compare those numbers with the two candidates' stances. Trump talks of building a border wall, taking deportation seriously, and ending President Obama's lawless executive actions on immigration. Prior to taking those unilateral actions, which effectively declared millions of illegal immigrants to be "legal," Obama said, "There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president." Then he did it anyway.

Hillary Clinton, in marked contrast with Trump, has said that she would expand Obama's executive actions—and she would surely appoint Supreme Court justices who (along with the four Bill Clinton and Obama appointees) would rule that she could. She has said, "I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members, either." Apparently believing that the Obama administration has been too aggressive in dealing with illegal immigration, she says that she will "stop the raids, stop the round-ups, stop the deporting of people who are living here doing their lives." She "will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office" and will "demand that there be a vote in the House." She has "proposed an Office of Immigrant Affairs for the White House." And she wants to give illegal immigrants access to Obamacare: "We should let families—regardless of immigration status—buy into the Affordable Care

Act exchanges."

That leads us to Obama's centerpiece legislation, the second big issue favoring Trump. Charles Gaba, an Obamacare supporter, estimates that the average premium increase that insurers are requesting for Obamacare plans in 2017 is a whopping 23 percent. Many insurers are bailing out. The slow-motion death spiral is proceeding. Real Clear Politics lists 206 polls taken on Obamacare so far during Obama's second term—3 found it to be popular, 202 found it to be unpopular, 1 has found a tie.

Trump says, "We will repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare," and he has been briefed on the House GOP alternative and likes it. Clinton says she will "defend and expand the Affordable Care Act." In a clear step toward a true government monopoly, she says that she would add a "public option"—a government-run plan—to Obamacare. The Democrats couldn't even pass the "public option" when they had 60 votes in the Senate and a 75-seat margin in the House. That's how politically toxic it was—and likely remains.

Obamacare has thrown a wet blanket over the economy, but it is hardly the sole example of a heavy-handed program of regulation and redistribution that has stymied economic growth under Obama. According to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis, after adjusting for inflation, average yearly GDP growth under Obama has been an anemic 1.5 percent—last among the 12 postwar presidents and less than half of President Jimmy Carter's tally (3.3 percent). Even Obama's best year of growth (2.6 percent, in 2015) was below average across the past 70 years. Median household income, moreover, has fared worse under Obama than the GDP has.

In response, Trump talks of trade deals that put America first, making American businesses more internationally competitive by cutting the corporate tax rate to 15 percent (down from 35 percent today), reducing personal taxes, introducing a temporary moratorium on federal regulations, and lifting restrictions on all sources of American energy—in short, keeping governments, both others' and our own, from undermining the efforts of American workers.

In marked contrast, Clinton wants to increase taxes, government spending, and regulation. She was for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a central part of Obama's economic agenda, before she was against it. (Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of Clinton, has said she's still for it.) Continuing Obama's pattern of picking winners and losers, Clinton wants to "establish the U.S. as the clean energy superpower of the world" (italics added). She argues that "trickle-down economics," meaning policies that led to 3.5 percent average yearly GDP growth under President Reagan (and 7.3 percent growth once the Reagan recovery really hit full stride), "does not help our economy go." On economic matters, she is effectively running for Obama's third term. After eight years of Obama's economic record, that's a tough sell.

Moreover, immigration, Obamacare, and the economy are hardly the only issues favoring Trump. At a time when violent crime has begun to rise again, Trump is focused on restoring law and order, while Clinton is focused on increasing leniency in criminal sentencing. At a time when new terrorist attacks are occurring every few days or weeks, Trump isn't skittish about saying "Islamic terrorism" and can't be held responsible for ISIS's ascendancy, while Clinton is and can. At a time when we are approaching $20 trillion in national debt—nearly double what the tally was when Obama took office—Clinton is calling for "free" college. At a time when the vast majority of Americans oppose providing taxpayer funding for abortion, Clinton is calling for killing off the Hyde Amendment, the longstanding protection against such practices that for decades enjoyed bipartisan support. (What's more, then-senator Clinton repeatedly voted against what is now the federal ban on partial-birth abortions.)

Even beyond policy issues, Trump could capitalize on Clinton's well-earned reputation as a mendacious political climber. Her astonishing claim that FBI director James Comey had called her statements to the American people about sending classified emails from her personal server "truthful" and "consistent," when Comey actually said her statements were "not true," is just the latest example.

Clinton, meanwhile, has only one real "issue," if you will, in her favor—her claim that Trump's disposition makes him unfit to hold the nation's highest office. Indeed, the entire election will likely come down to this: Can Clinton make voters' concerns about her challenger's character trump the long list of issues that would otherwise favor his election?

Jeffrey H. Anderson is a Hudson Institute senior fellow.