Experts question impact of late shocks

Historical data suggests that late-breaking news rarely changes the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.

Matt Dallek, a professor of political management at George Washington University, defines an October surprise as an unforeseen event that has the theoretical potential to upend the debate. He notes the term originated around the 1980 election. In that race, President Jimmy Carter failed to secure the release of American hostages held in Iran before November 4, 1980. Carter subsequently lost to Republican rival Ronald Reagan.

Dallek points to several other events that fit this definition. These include Iran-Contra related indictments in 1992 and the global financial collapse in 2008. He stated that there is no evidence these specific incidents flipped a dynamic that was already in place. Instead, he observed that such events typically dominate the news cycle and cause the trend line to move further toward the candidate who was already likely to prevail.

One notable exception to this pattern occurred in 2016. Less than two weeks before the election, then FBI Director James Comey wrote a letter to Congress. The letter informed lawmakers that the FBI had received new information regarding the email investigation into Hillary Clinton. Days before Election Day, Comey issued a second letter stating that the new information did not alter previous conclusions. Dallek said this sequence of events rekindled the impression among some voters that Clinton was corrupt and hiding something. He noted that it reminded the public of her email scandal.

In the current cycle, Dallek identified a potential candidate for an October surprise in the Ohio gubernatorial race. Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy released an ad targeting his rival, Amy Acton (D). The ad features Acton’s estranged mother to launch an attack against her. The full impact of this specific campaign move will not be known until the votes are counted.