By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, Calif. – American politics is on a unique trajectory regarding the phenomenon known as the “October Surprise.” Typically, it refers to a political event or revelation that occurs in the final weeks before a U.S. election, usually intended to influence the outcome. Although it originated in the context of American politics, particularly the presidential election, its use has expanded to include any last-minute revelation or event that could influence public opinion just before an important decision.
The phrase came to prominence during the 1980 U.S. presidential election between President Jimmy Carter and his challenger, Ronald Reagan. Carter struggled to secure the release of 52 American hostages held in Iran. Many speculated that if Carter could secure their release before the election, it would significantly improve his re-election chances. The term “October Surprise” began to circulate as Reagan’s supporters and others expected that Carter would be able to announce a dramatic success just in time to win over voters. It turned out that the hostages were not released before the election, but on January 20, 1981, the day Reagan took office. The timing led to conspiracy theories that Reagan’s campaign may have disrupted negotiations to delay the release until after the election. However, there is no conclusive evidence that has ever supported this claim.
Since 1980, the “October Surprise” mystique has continued to capture public attention, as political campaigns and the media keep a close eye on any last-minute developments in election cycles.
Consider the following examples:
In 1992, just days before the election, the independent prosecutor investigating the Iran-Contra affair revealed that he would not indict President George HW Bush, who was then seeking re-election. This was widely regarded as an October surprise in Bush’s favor, although he ultimately lost to Bill Clinton.
In 2004, in the last days before the elections, a video of Osama bin Laden was released in which he addressed the American people. Bin Laden’s unusual intervention was seen as a potential advantage for incumbent President George W. Bush, who campaigned heavily on national security in his race against John Kerry.
And who can forget what happened in 2016? Two major surprises in October marked the October election. The first was the release of the Access Hollywood tape, in which then-candidate Donald Trump made lewd comments about women. The second was then-FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the FBI was reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. This event took place just eleven days before the election. Both incidents contributed to a tumultuous final phase of the campaign.
In the weeks before the 2020 US election, Facebook and Twitter restricted sharing New York Post story claiming that emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop revealed that then-candidate Joe Biden may have been involved in his son’s Ukrainian business dealings. This story fueled existing, unproven allegations of corruption against Joe Biden. Facebook’s decision to limit the story’s reach was influenced by a general FBI warning about possible Russian disinformation, although the FBI had not specifically flagged the Hunter Biden story.
Mark Zuckerberg later explained on the Joe Rogan podcast that Facebook’s actions were intended to prevent misinformation. Still, he admitted it was frustrating to suppress potentially legitimate information. He said: “If we remove something we don’t intend to, that’s the worst thing.” After the elections, further investigation is carried out by media such as The Washington Post and The New York Times suggested that parts of the data on the laptop were likely authentic, although much of it remained unverifiable due to processing problems. The incident continues to spark debates about media bias, censorship and the role of social media in managing the flow of information during elections.
This year, at a rally for former President Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, one of the opening speakers, described Puerto Rico as “a floating island of trash.” The comment sparked immediate backlash from Democrats and some Republicans, prompting Trump’s campaign to distance itself from Hinchcliffe’s comment. The joke was widely criticized as offensive, and the incident highlights the ongoing sensitivity surrounding political rhetoric about US territories like Puerto Rico.
Despite the dumpster fire this comment caused, Trump failed to condemn the comment; it took him more than three days to label the comment as “racist.” Despite the widespread criticism it received, Senator J.D. Vance did not condemn Tony Hinchcliffe’s comment about Puerto Rico. This lack of response has drawn additional attention as other Republicans distanced themselves from the comment, highlighting divisions within the Republican Party over rhetoric about U.S. territories. The incident underlines the sensitivity surrounding political statements about Puerto Rico and the divergent reactions among Republican leaders.
If Trump were to lose the election in part due to the reactions to Hinchcliffe’s controversial comment, it would serve as a cautionary tale, illustrating the outsized impact that casual comments from affiliates can have on a campaign. Even comments from peripheral figures – such as rally speakers – can become serious risks, especially in tight races.
Such an incident could prompt future politicians to exercise stricter control over public statements, especially during the critical final stages of an election. Campaigns could increasingly avoid spontaneity, opting for scripted environments and carefully vetted speakers to minimize risks. The phrase “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory” perfectly captures how a single misstep can sabotage the success of a campaign, even when victory is imminent. In politics, as in sports, momentum can build over time through careful strategy, hard work and consistent messaging. But like a football team driving across the field only to fumble at the one-yard mark, a political campaign can see all its efforts unraveled by a single, poorly received comment or action.
In the context of a campaign, this means that a moment of carelessness – such as a controversial joke from an affiliate – can undo months of progress. It’s as if all the groundwork, voter outreach, and strategic messaging are “messed up” in one moment, giving the opposing side an opening to take advantage of the mistake. As in football, where the opposing team seizes an unexpected opportunity to turn the game around, a rival campaign can use a misstep to change public perception, win over undecided voters or increase turnout among their supporters.
Ultimately, this analogy underlines how fragile success can be in high-stakes environments. For a campaign close to victory, avoiding these last-minute ‘fumbles’ is crucial, as they can turn a clear path to success into a surprise defeat. In this sense, a campaign’s hard-earned momentum could be derailed by a single poorly received comment, a stark reminder that in politics, small missteps can change the outcome, making this an example of “snatching defeat from the jaws of the victory’.
Trump and his campaign leadership would have been wise to respond immediately to Hinchcliffe’s insulting comment by publicly denouncing it and, ideally, removing him from the chamber. Such swift action would have sent a clear message that the campaign will not tolerate disparaging comments, especially when directed at specific communities such as Puerto Ricans. By taking decisive action, the campaign could have distanced itself from the comment and maintained its standing with voters who might otherwise have felt alienated by the offensive statement.
This response would have demonstrated strong leadership and responsibility, key qualities that voters often look for in a candidate. It would also have shown sensitivity to the diverse makeup of the American electorate, including citizens of Puerto Rico. Campaigns are in the public eye and their responses to missteps can become defining moments. By acting quickly, Trump’s team could have portrayed the incident as a rare lapse in judgment by a single individual, rather than reflecting the campaign’s positions, thereby avoiding prolonged media coverage and softening potential backlash. In contrast, the inability to act quickly allowed the comment to linger in the public consciousness, potentially weakening support and creating unnecessary vulnerabilities as the election approached.
*
Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista.