Opinion

The following is presented as part of The Columbian’s Opinion content, which offers a point of view in order to provoke thought and debate of civic issues. Opinions represent the viewpoint of the author. Unsigned editorials represent the consensus opinion of The Columbian’s editorial board, which operates independently of the news department.

News / Opinion / Columns

Estrich: Will revelations matter?

Woodward releases book but 95% of U.S. already decided on race

By Susan Estrich

Published: October 14, 2024, 6:01am

Bob Woodward’s new book, “War,” has what we have come to expect as the usual number of blockbuster revelations, proving once again his skill at loosening the lips of those close to power. My favorite is a story that in the midst of drastic shortages at home and abroad, Donald Trump was sending COVID tests off to his authoritarian buddy in the Kremlin, who was warning him not to tell anyone he’d done it. “I don’t want you to tell anybody because people will get mad at you, not me.” Two buddies looking out for each other — the then-president and the dictator of the evil empire.

Woodward, who has been writing about presidents and their secrets for 50 years, comes to the conclusion that Trump was the “most reckless and impulsive president in American history and is demonstrating the very same character as a presidential candidate in 2024.” Worse than Richard Nixon, who resigned the presidency in large part because of the reporting of Woodward and Carl Bernstein. For his part, Trump, through a campaign spokesman, dismissed “the made-up stories,” and stated that the book “either belongs in the bargain bin of the fiction section of a discount bookstore or used as toilet tissue.”

My prediction is the bestseller list, but the real question is whether it matters. Is there anything new you can tell a Trump voter that will change their vote?

It has not been a good time for Trump in the mainstream media. There have been numerous reports of how he has been going off the deep end in his latest round of rallies and interviews. He started out in Butler, Pa., with a restrained homage to the man who died at the rally, and ended up on a rant against immigrants, repeating much-fact checked falsehoods about immigrants driving up crime (which is actually down).

He called into Hugh Hewitt’s radio show to do a rant against immigrants with “bad genes.” Eugenics, anyone? The New York Times did what is called a “deep dive” into the age issue and the cognitive questions that come with it. “Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age,” it was called, which made the point that “with the passage of time, the 78-year-old former president’s speeches have grown darker, harsher, longer, angrier, less focused, more profane and increasingly fixated on the past, according to a review of his public appearances over the years.” It reminded me of Kamala Harris’ great line at the debate encouraging undecided voters to attend a Trump rally and see for themselves why he shouldn’t be president. Maybe one of her super PACs should make an ad that uses the highlights and lowlights of his rally speeches, interspersed with cuts of crowds leaving, and run it in swing states.

But will it matter?

As much as 95 percent of the electorate has already decided who to vote for, and they are roughly split in two. There’s nothing that is likely to be said or done that will change that, and the question for them is whether they will turn out to vote or not.

The rest are low-propensity leaners. That’s why Kamala Harris is doing interviews with “Call Her Daddy,” whose audience is primarily young women, and Howard Stern, and Stephen Colbert, rather than with all the network news anchors watched by more high-propensity voters. “60 Minutes” was for the high-propensity types, most of whom are decided.

If the polls are right, this election will be won on the ground, decided by who turns out their voters, and especially those low-propensity leaners. Can Harris turn out the young people and women who lean in her direction but are low-propensity voters?

If you’re a registered voter in a swing state, chances are you’ve been contacted — more than once — by phone or internet or direct mail solicitors wanting to know if you favor Kamala Harris. Depending on what you answer, they’ll be back in touch.

Trump has his canvassers as well, although Harris is running a much bigger ground game. If that’s what matters, she has the advantage.

But are there secret Trump voters who are reluctant to say that they’re going to vote for a crazy old man? Will race and/or gender bias rear its ugly head? Could something in the world really happen to shift the dynamic of this race — an October surprise with wider impact than two assassination attempts and the blame game that has followed them?

I’m dubious, but as James Carville says, we still have a long way to go. And nobody knows anything, at least not for sure.

Related Stories