The October Surprise May Be Arriving Shortly

Now that you have read the 500th poll of the battleground states, the thousands of simulations, the scientific and pseudo-scientific calculations, the hourly assertions of how close this contest is, you might want to take a breath and contemplate the possibility that the factor that will determine the outcome may not have happened yet. At least, that’s what our recent political history says.

Again and again, close presidential contests have been overtaken by last-minute events that rendered the months of analysis and speculation inoperative. Historians can debate the ultimate impact of these moments, but they have emerged often enough that they should provide a good dose of humility to any assessment of the outcome.

Welcome to the “October surprise,” which has come to mean any late-breaking event with the potential to change the course of the race, but which first entered America’s political lexicon in 1980.

The idea was born out of fear in Ronald Reagan’s campaign that President Jimmy Carter would manage to win the release of 52 hostages who had been held captive in Iran for nearly a year, providing the embattled president with a significant diplomatic success. Reagan campaign manager Bill Casey publicly warned that Carter might be planning such an “October surprise,” and the campaign urged its friends in the intelligence and military communities to flag any movements that suggested a release was in the works.

Of course, not only did that not happen, but the anniversary of the captivity happened to be on election eve, further reminding the country of the hostages’ plight. The measure of Iran’s distaste for Carter can be measured by the fact that the hostages were released mere minutes after Reagan was inaugurated.

In fact, the real October surprise of that year may have been alleged efforts by the Reagan campaign to persuade Iran not to release the hostages until after the election and deprive Carter of the political windfall. The questions grew great enough that a House investigation of the matter was conducted. Lawmakers ultimately concluded in 1993 that there was “little or no credible evidence of communication between the 1980 Reagan campaign and the government of Iran.” But in his definitive biography of Reagan, author Max Boot looked at new documents about the movements of Bill Casey and the subsequent dealings between the Reagan administration and Iran to assert that the evidence of this theory was “substantial and credible if still circumstantial.”

Other October surprises that did take place have been costly.

In 1992, Iran again was a late player in the campaign. On the Friday before the election, former Reagan Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was indicted for attempting to cover up the Iran-Contra affair. In that episode, which nearly sank Reagan’s presidency, the U.S. shipped arms to Iran in an effort to gain the release of captive Americans and sent profits from those sales to the rebel Contras in Nicaragua, in violation of a congressional prohibition.

The indictment strongly suggested that President George H.W. Bush, who had been Reagan’s vice president, knew far more about the affair than he had indicated. The story made headlines throughout the weekend before the election, doing further damage to the already weakened incumbent. (Ultimately, Bush pardoned Weinberger in the closing days of his presidency.)

In 2000, in the last week of the contest between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush, a Maine reporter revealed that in 1976 — 24 years earlier — Bush had been pulled over for drunk driving. Bush acknowledged the incident, admitted to improper behavior as a young man and explained he had never admitted it previously to spare his children the embarrassment. Top Bush strategist Karl Rove argued that the late disclosure cost Bush the popular vote and as many as five states. Had Florida gone the other way, the quarter-century old arrest would likely have been the Bush campaign’s semi-official explanation for his loss.

Sometimes the October surprise hits in November: In 2004, four days before the presidential election, a new video surfaced from Osama Bin Laden accepting responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks and warning the U.S. not to strike Muslim nations. Democratic candidate John Kerry later pointed to the tape as a key reason for his narrow defeat by Bush, since it put terrorism in the spotlight again.

In 2008, the implosion of Lehman Brothers and the specter of the wholesale collapse of the financial system buttressed the campaign of Barack Obama, particularly after John McCain appeared ill at ease in responding to the crisis.

Just eight years ago, FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation was exactly the story her campaign did not need. She certainly blames it at least in part for her loss .

If this history is not enough evidence that “unknown unknowns” have the potential to upend this campaign, consider just the events of this past year. Back in January, POLITICO Magazine asked about a dozen of us to suggest events that might disrupt what seemed at the time to be an extremely static race. The fact is, many of those “predictions” have already happened: devastating hurricanes, rising global conflict, a violent assault on a candidate.

My own contribution was this: “Every time Joe Biden steps on a stage or off a plane, his supporters hold their breath. With most voters (including Democrats) thinking he’s too old to be president, a highly public stumble (physical or verbal) could turn that belief into a serious demand for someone else to take his place.”

So when you read of the remarkable “stability” of the 2024 race, the relatively minor movement in the polls, the reasonable assertions that issues like immigration, inflation or abortion will be decisive, just keep in mind that if past is prologue, we may still be in for a surprise.