Policy Corner: Beware the October Surprise
Some voters have short memories. And some news stories take days or weeks to flesh out.
Such knowledge is at the heart of the October Surprise.
I'm not talking about the natural occurring October Surprise, such as President Donald Trump's contracting COVID-19 or Ronald Reagan's nail-biter over whether the Iran hostages would be released before Election Day, an event that might have given President Jimmy Carter the edge - and a second term. It came too late for Carter. The hostages weren't released until Reagan was taking the oath of office the following January.
The kind of October Surprise I'm talking about is a political calculation: an event or disclosure of information - the more salacious, the more damning the better - right before an election that could destroy someone's chances of being elected.
Many October Surprises are saved for months and sent out within days of elections, oftentimes with little time for journalists to substantiate or to give the targets of such surprises a chance to deny, defend or explain.
This doesn't happen just with presidential races. The tactic is employed in state and local races, too.
Just about the time fall begins in an election year, our antenna are up. We view things with a heightened sense of skepticism.
As we creep closer to Election Day, we watch letters to the editor for outrageous smears and try to avoid personal attacks, as well as claims about positions or actions of candidates that aren't known or verifiable.
We stop publishing election-related letters entirely on the Friday before Election Day to ensure that some claim is not made that a candidate or campaign wouldn't have the opportunity to reply to ahead of Tuesday.
The same goes for political campaigns that "happen" upon damaging information just days before the election and try to shop it around to reporters.
Sensible journalistic practices come into play. Is a claim verifiable? Is there a paper trail? What does the candidate who's the target of the smear say about it? Can the target provide proof it didn't happen?
If the information is that solid, it should be revealed with ample time to be researched properly. If the information is that good, campaigns shouldn't count on us to help them sell voters on an impulse buy.
My advice: the more scandalous the story the closer to the election, the more skepticism you as a reader and voter should apply to it.
This year, with such a sizable group of people voting early in whatever form and endless social media platforms to promulgate endless baloney, the traditional manufactured October Surprise seems to be a bit less likely.
But, hey, it's still early.