One Misstep Away: How Campaign Momentum Can Vanish in an Instant

By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

CHULA VISTA, California –American politics has a unique trajectory regarding the phenomena known as the “October Surprise.” Typically, it refers to a political event or revelation that emerges in the final weeks before a U.S. election, typically intended to influence the outcome. Although it originated in the context of American politics, particularly presidential elections, its usage has broadened to include any last-minute revelation or event that might sway public opinion just before an important decision.

The phrase gained prominence during the 1980 U.S. presidential election between President Jimmy Carter and his challenger, Ronald Reagan. Carter was struggling 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 boost his reelection chances. The term “October Surprise” began circulating as Reagan’s supporters and others anticipated that Carter might announce a dramatic success just in time to sway voters.  As it turned out, the hostages were not released before the election, but on January 20, 1981, the very day Reagan took office. The timing led to conspiracy theories that Reagan’s campaign may have interfered with negotiations to delay the release until after the election. However, no conclusive evidence has ever supported this claim.

Since 1980, the “October Surprise” mystique continued to capture public attention, as political campaigns and media closely monitor for potential 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 H.W. Bush, who was then seeking reelection. This was widely considered an October Surprise favoring Bush, although he ultimately lost to Bill Clinton.

In 2004, in the final days before the election, a video from Osama bin Laden emerged, addressing the American people. Bin Laden’s unusual intervention was viewed as potentially benefiting incumbent President George W. Bush, who was campaigning heavily on national security in his race against John Kerry.

And who can forget what happened in 2016? Two significant October surprises marked that October election. The first was the release of the Access Hollywood tape, which captured then-candidate Donald Trump making lewd comments about women. The second was the announcement by then-FBI Director James Comey that the FBI was reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. This event came just 11 days before the election. Both incidents contributed to a tumultuous final stretch of the campaign.

In the weeks before the 2020 U.S. election, Facebook and Twitter restricted the sharing of a New York Post story alleging that emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop showed then-candidate Joe Biden may have been involved in his son’s Ukrainian business dealings. This story fed into 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 potential Russian disinformation, though 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, saying, “When we take down something that we’re not supposed to, that’s the worst.” Following the election, further investigations by outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times suggested that parts of the data on the laptop were likely authentic, though much of it remained unverifiable due to handling issues. The incident continues to prompt debates over media bias, censorship, and the role of social media in managing information flow 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 garbage.” This remark sparked immediate backlash from Democrats and some Republicans, leading Trump’s campaign to distance itself from Hinchcliffe’s comment. The joke was widely criticized as offensive, and the incident highlights ongoing sensitivity around political rhetoric concerning U.S. territories like Puerto Rico.

Despite the dumpster fire this remark created, Trump failed to condemn the comment; it took him over three days to denounce the remark as “racist.” Notably, 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 remark, highlighting divisions within the GOP regarding rhetoric about U.S. territories. The incident underscores the sensitivity surrounding political statements on Puerto Rico and the varying reactions among Republican leaders.

If Trump were to lose the election partly due to backlash over Hinchcliffe’s controversial remark, it would serve as a cautionary tale, illustrating the outsized impact that offhand comments from affiliates can have on a campaign. Even remarks by peripheral figures—like rally speakers—can become serious liabilities, particularly in tight races.

Such an incident could prompt future politicians to exercise tighter control over public statements, especially during the critical final stages of an election. Campaigns might 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 a campaign’s success, even when victory seems imminent. In politics, just as in sports, momentum can build over time through careful strategy, hard work, and consistent messaging. But, like a football team driving down the field only to fumble at the one-yard line, 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 by an affiliate—can undo months of progress. It’s as if all the groundwork, voter outreach, and strategic messaging are “fumbled” in one moment, giving the opposing side an opening to capitalize on the error. Just like in football, where the other team seizes an unexpected opportunity to turn the game around, a rival campaign can use a misstep to shift public perception, win undecided voters, or increase turnout among their supporters.

Ultimately, this analogy underscores 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 transform a clear path to success into a surprising 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 shift the outcome, making this an example of “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.”

Trump and his campaign leadership would have been wise to respond immediately to Hinchcliffe’s offensive comment by publicly denouncing it and, ideally, removing him from the venue. Such swift action would have sent a clear message that the campaign does not tolerate disparaging remarks, especially those targeting specific communities like Puerto Ricans. By taking decisive action, the campaign could have distanced itself from the comment, preserving its standing with voters who might otherwise feel alienated by the offensive statement.

This response would have demonstrated strong leadership and accountability, key qualities voters often look for in a candidate. It would also have shown sensitivity to the diverse makeup of the American electorate, including citizens from Puerto Rico. Campaigns live in the public eye, and their reactions to missteps can become defining moments. By acting promptly, Trump’s team could have framed the incident as a rare lapse in judgment by a single individual rather than reflecting the campaign’s views, preventing prolonged media scrutiny and mitigating potential backlash. In contrast, the failure to act promptly left the comment lingering in the public consciousness, potentially diminishing support and creating unnecessary vulnerabilities as the election approached.

*
Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista.