The US election phenomenon that can influence a presidential election

On October 26, 1972 – just days before the vote by the American people – President Richard Nixon's national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, suddenly declared that peace was “near” in the costly and controversial U.S. war in Vietnam. Although it was already widely assumed that Nixon would win, and the initial peace talks would collapse less than two months later, the sudden prospect of peace essentially handed Nixon victory on a silver platter. In the end, he won the national popular vote in a landslide, beating his opponent by 18 million votes.

The event is widely considered the “original” October surprise in US politics and was referred to as such by US media and politicians alike in the early 1980s.

“Basically, it is something unexpected that happens very late, usually in October, in the campaign period and influences the outcome,” explained Oscar Winberg, a specialist in U.S. politics at Finland's Turku Institute for Advanced Studies.

Three kinds of surprises

Winberg said there are three general categories of “October surprises”: a sudden U.S. diplomatic development on the international stage, a political scandal from the past brought to light by a leak, or a major domestic news event in the form of such a news event For example, a natural disaster, a pandemic or the initiation of a criminal investigation.

One of the most eventful – and some say fateful – October surprises occurred in 2016. The race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was influenced by no fewer than four surprising news events in just 28 days.

October of that year began with the New York Times publishing Trump's 1995 tax returns, showing that the $900 million loss he claimed at the time may have allowed him to lose money in subsequent ones to avoid federal taxes for almost two decades.

A week later, the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, run by Julian Assange, began publishing hacked emails from Clinton's campaign. The emails contained, among other things, excerpts of paid speeches that Clinton had given to elite financial companies in the USA. The speeches, which Clinton chose not to make available to the public, included comments in which she appeared to represent many of the values ​​of the ultra-rich. She also praised a budget plan that would cut Social Security and admitted she felt “far removed” from the middle class and their needs – despite claiming on the campaign trail that she was fighting for them.

The next day, on October 8, a new bombshell dropped: a 2005 recording in which Trump was caught bragging about groping women and saying, “When you're a star, they let you.” do that.”

Just in time for the end of the month, on October 28, it was Clinton's turn again. This time, James Comey, then director of the FBI, unexpectedly announced that the FBI would reopen an investigation into Clinton's use of a private server to send emails.

Devlin Barrett, a Washington Post reporter, wrote in his 2020 book “October Surprise” that while Comey said nothing about the contents of Clinton's emails, news of the reopening of the investigation “cost her the race.”

Preparation and fear

Although there are many cases in which an October surprise didn't have much of an impact on the election outcome – in 2000, George W. Bush survived the revelation that he had been arrested for drunk driving in the 1970s – the phenomenon has become an electoral factor many candidates have become afraid.

In 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan went so far as to warn voters that his opponent, then-President Jimmy Carter, had a possible October surprise up his sleeve. Reagan and his campaign claimed that the U.S. leader was trying to time the negotiated release of the 52 Americans held hostage in Iran last year to sway the election in his favor.

However, this surprise never materialized. Instead, the hostages were released on January 20, 1981, the same day Reagan was sworn in as US president.

Winberg said October surprises have become so common that campaign teams are considering them preemptively.

“They take these potential surprises very seriously,” he said, noting that campaign teams have crisis management plans in place should they face one. But they're also trying to uncover potential October surprises that work in their favor.

“In American politics, an enormous amount of time and money is invested in what is called 'opposition research,' where you study your opponent to try to find skeletons in the closet,” he said.

They also examine themselves. Just in case.

“It is common for a candidate to hire an investigator to look into their own background to find things that they themselves may be blind to, but that would look bad for the broader American audience if it came to light.” he said.

Less dangerous than before

Although October surprises may have become more common in recent years – particularly due to foreign election interference and various disinformation campaigns – Winberg said they have lost some of their former power.

“They are less significant than they used to be,” he said, noting that there are far fewer undecided voters to sway these days because most voters now remain loyal to the party they always voted for.

“In the polarized two-party system that exists in the United States today, each side enjoys 45 to 47 percent support, so there really aren't many voters left to convince. But at the same time that means that small changes can make the difference.”

The other trend, he said, is that more and more Americans are voting early by mail-in ballot. This trend was particularly driven by the Covid-19 pandemic.

“As a result, last-minute news developments that could previously be considered groundbreaking are no longer as important as they once were.”