Trump Clinton
By Charlie Gerow
The term “October surprise” has been part of American political lingo for at least half a century.
Republican strategist Charlie Gerow (PennLive file)
The phrase refers to a last-minute occurrence that potentially changes the course of the presidential election.
“October surprise” was a major item of discussion in 1968 when Hubert Humphrey faced off against Richard Nixon and George Wallace.
The Vietnam war was at its height with more than half a million American soldiers in the war zone and more than 30,000 already killed.
Lyndon Johnson was the sitting president. He had dropped out of the race earlier in the year and paved the way for his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, to capture the Democratic nomination.
Johnson believed that he was about to achieve a major breakthrough in peace talks with the North Vietnamese.
Any peace treaty would have benefitted Humphrey. But the deal never materialized, with some conspiracy theorists asserting that Nixon and the Republicans had sabotaged the talks.
A dozen years later Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were locked in an increasingly close contest.
Republicans feared that Carter would somehow manage to get the 52 American who’d been held hostage by the Iranians freed on the eve of the election, thus catapulting Carter to hero status and denying Reagan the presidency.
It never happened. Reagan won in a landslide, at least in part due to the view that Carter had been weak and inept in handling the hostage crisis. On the day Reagan was inaugurated the Americans came home.
Every four years there’s talk in the media and among the political chatter class about the possibility of an October surprise.
In 1992, when incumbent George H.W. Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton, some Republicans saw the indictment of Reagan’s Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, just days before the election as deliberately timed by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh to hurt Bush.
In 2000, his son, George W. Bush had drunk driving charges brought against him decades earlier publicly revealed for the first time just days before the November 7 election.
Although the phrase has generally been used to describe news events deliberately timed to influence the election, sometimes these events occur spontaneously or without human intervention.
In 2012 President Obama’s handling of Hurricane Sandy and especially laudatory comments from political rivals like Governor Chris Christie helped him get past Mitt Romney.
It’s no surprise that, before either party has officially nominated their candidate, there’s already speculation about an October surprise in 2016.
This has been a year of more surprises than any cycle should allow, so it’s a pretty safe bet that there will be a few unforeseen occurrences late in the campaign.
Will there be an additional terrorist attack in the days leading up to the election? Will some other international incident boil over into American electoral politics?
Will there be a stock market crash like the one in 2008 or some other major economic upheaval? How will the candidates respond and how will voters react to their responses?
If there were a foreign policy crisis would it be more likely to tip the scales towards Hillary Clinton, who promotes her foreign policy experience as a major distinction between herself and Mr. Trump?
If there’s a domestic economic upheaval will it inure to Trump’s benefit given that most Americans currently view him as better able to handle the economy?
Current survey data suggests that a foreign policy crisis that didn’t involve terrorism would advantage Clinton.
The June 23 Wall Street Journal poll gives her a whopping 54-30 lead over Trump on who would be better able to handle foreign policy. However, a terrorist inspired or led incident would help Trump who is seen as tougher on terrorism by most Americans. When asked who would better handle terrorism and national security, Trump had a 44-39 margin.
If the economy were in upheaval Trump would hold a significant advantage as the Wall Street Journal survey suggests that Trump is viewed as better able to handle economic affairs by a wide 47-37 percent lead.
Any of those scenarios is possible, and some sort of “surprise” is likely given the course of this election year.
The most likely “surprise” (and maybe no surprise at all) would be yet another revelation about Hillary Clinton that would highlight her already mounting trouble with the electorate on the issues of trustworthiness and integrity.
The possibilities are boundless; certainly the last has not been heard about the several public scandals that continue to haunt her and there’s always the chance that something not already discussed comes rolling out of her closet.
For the Trump campaign there has to be concern about revelations in the ongoing fraud trial over Trump University.
While the matter won’t get to trial before Election Day, there will no doubt be additional depositions and evidence leaking out and floating around.
The more probable “surprise” will be some spontaneous utterance by Trump himself that proves to be the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back.”
While some argue that his litany of offensive remarks haven’t seemed to hurt him all that badly thus far, there is a cumulative effect that hasn’t yet been fully realized. There’s an equilibrium point or tipping point that Trump hasn’t yet reached and needs to do all he can to avoid.
In a year already chock full of surprises, expect at least one in October.