Why the allegations around Trump admiring Nazi generals may not be an October surprise

John A. Tures
25 October 2024
'Tired of all this nonsense': Scaramucci alleges Melania Trump is quietly rooting for Harris

Throughout the post-World War II era, the revelation that a party nominee allegedly expressed admiration for generals from Nazi Germany for their loyalty might have been an epic October Surprise. But for many voters and the media, it’s sadly “no big deal,” or just a little mistake, when such evidence would have destroyed the electability of any other candidate.

In the Charlie Brown comics and cartoons, the normally sensible Linus Van Pelt annually promises that “The Great Pumpkin” will arise on Halloween and give out presents. But the event never happens. It’s similar to “the October Surprise,” a game-changing electoral event promised by the media, but rarely emerges or delivers a victory.

The Birth of the October Surprise

The whole thing got its start from an allegation that someone from the Reagan campaign team met with representatives of the Iranian hostage takers, to convince them not to release the American embassy workers in exchange for military equipment to prevent President Jimmy Carter from securing their freedom and rebounding in the polls. The book October Surprise: America’s Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan by Gary Sick, came out in November of 1991.

People debated Sick’s assertions, and whether Reagan or Bush took part in discussions. But what was unmistakable is that the term “October Surprise” was born, as well as the media obsession with uncovering these late-breaking campaign events that could alter an election in favor of a candidate.

There were no documented cases of October Surprises in 1984, 1988 or 1996. No lead changes or late-breaking stories exist for these contests. But others have tried to make the case for October Surprises.

So-Called October Surprises That Didn’t Swing Elections, Or Didn’t Occur In October

David Greenberg of Rutgers, a professor of history and journalism and media studies and an expert on American political and cultural history, contends “In October 1992, former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger was indicted for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. George Bush Sr. was already behind in the polls, but this was seen as one more blow to his bid for a second term.” Given the lack of a direct connection of this story to Bush, and the fact that President Bush was actually gaining in the polls during this time, according to Gallup, it does not resemble any “October Surprise.”

In 2000, on November 3, word leaked out that George W. Bush had a drunk driving offense dating back to 1976. His rival, Al Gore, chose not to publicize it, and it appeared to have no effect on the election, even one as close as the 2000 election. As The BBC Magazine revealed “And the day before the election, polls showed as many as eight out of 10 Americans felt the long-ago trouble with the law was irrelevant to the campaign.” It also does not seem to qualify as an October Surprise.

Many assert that the Osama Bin-Laden video released near the end of October was the “October Surprise” that swung the election to President George W. Bush. Senator John Kerry’s speechwriter Robert Shrum thinks as much. A Newsweek Magazine article reports “Shrum believes that bin Laden was the deciding factor in handing the 2004 election to Bush. In addition to knocking the increasingly bad news from the Iraq War off the front pages in the final days of the race, bin Laden reminded voters about the terror threat the U.S. still faced three years after the 9/11 attacks—a threat that Bush was seen as better at handling.” Newsweek also notes that Bush felt the video helped him win too. As The Guardian claims, the first poll released after the video showed Bush with a big six-point lead.

There’s one problem with this story. The Bin-Laden video didn’t help Bush. The first poll that came out after the video was released was taken almost entirely before the public even knew about the video, as I document in my article for the Homeland Security Affairs journal. In fact, the Bin-Laden video actually moved the election slightly in favor of Kerry, who lost by a closer margin than six points.

Those who claim that the Stock Market meltdown was the October Surprise of 2008 may not remember that Lehman Brothers collapsed on September 15, 2008. The race in the polls was close at the time, but it is not clear whether or not Obama’s growth in the polls was due to the collapse (on Bush’s watch) or McCain’s call to suspend the campaign and the first presidential debate.

Supporters of there being a 2012 election October Surprise can’t agree on whether it was the secret recording of Mitt Romney or Hurricane Sandy. That Romney recording, claiming that 47% are dependent upon the government (statements that are far tamer than anything Donald Trump has said at a rally) took place in May, were found online and reported on September 17, 2012, well before October. President Obama’s lead in surveys was larger before the tape was released than it was after the tape was released in September.

As for Hurricane Sandy, it made landfall on October 29, 2012. The race was neck-and-neck before the hurricane and was the same afterwards. And no, Romney continued to campaign during the hurricane after it. In fact, he showed up to do public relations hurricane help during that time, claiming states should be in charge of hurricane response, which didn’t endear himself to voters recognizing that the size and scope of the disaster exceeded what a state could do.

For those who claim the 2020 election was decided by the COVID-19 pandemic, they might be right. They might also remember that the virus came to America in the Spring of 2020, and not in October. Trump catching COVID-19 late in October didn’t seem to alter the race, as the polls tightened during that time.

The Lone October Surprise: The 2016 Election

The Gary Sick book isn’t the only one with the October Surprise title. Devlin Barrett wrote the book October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election, which came out in September of 2020. “An already tightening race saw one seismic correction: it came in October when the FBI launched an investigation into the Clinton staff's use of a private server for their emails. Clinton fell 3-4 percent in the polls instantly, and her campaign never had time to rebut the investigation or rebuild her momentum so close to election day. The FBI cost her the race,” a book summary contends.

The 2016 election is probably the closest thing we have to a verifiable October Surprise though it is worth noting that the race was relatively close before the release of the FBI investigation details and Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote.

And that alleged revelation from General John Kelly about Trump liking having loyal generals like those from Nazi Germany is likely to have as much of an impact as Trump’s “grab them by the pussy” tape in 2016. It might have been an October Surprise for any other candidate, except Trump, whose behavior has been excused by so many people and journalists.

In conclusion, looking for an “October Surprise,” or planning for one, appears to be a fruitless exercise. Elections are decided by various factors occurring throughout the campaign season, not one last-minute cataclysmic event. Those covering races should report on the candidate positions and how they might impact voters, instead of looking for something as likely to occur as “The Great Pumpkin” from Charles Schultz’s cartoon strip.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.

From Your Site Articles