Have October surprises ever really made a difference?

[wildflower]

As I recall, the one in 2000 (the DUI) didn't.

If it's true that October surprises don't have much effect on voting, that will ease my mind a bit.

If info has already been posted on this, I apologize; I haven't located it...just point me to the thread.

-wildflower

[blackcat77]

1. I think it helped Gore. He was way behind and came back.... nt

[wildflower]

2. I guess you're right; I was thinking that the polls at that time

weren't showing what was really happening.

In searching on this, I unearthed an article from the New Yorker that mentioned the October surprise in passing. It didn't say much, but the article as a whole is interesting.

THE UNPOLITICAL ANIMAL
by LOUIS MENAND
How political science understands voters.
Issue of 2004-08-30
Posted 2004-08-23

In every Presidential-election year, there are news stories about undecided voters, people who say that they are perplexed about which candidate’s positions make the most sense. They tell reporters things like “I’d like to know more about Bush’s plan for education,” or “I’m worried that Kerry’s ideas about Social Security don’t add up.” They say that they are thinking about issues like “trust,” and whether the candidate cares about people like them. To voters who identify strongly with a political party, the undecided voter is almost an alien life form.

<...>

In the face of this evidence, three theories have arisen. The first is that electoral outcomes, as far as “the will of the people” is concerned, are essentially arbitrary. The fraction of the electorate that responds to substantive political arguments is hugely outweighed by the fraction that responds to slogans, misinformation, “fire alarms” (sensational news), “October surprises” (last-minute sensational news), random personal associations, and “gotchas.” Even when people think that they are thinking in political terms, even when they believe that they are analyzing candidates on the basis of their positions on issues, they are usually operating behind a veil of political ignorance. They simply don’t understand, as a practical matter, what it means to be “fiscally conservative,” or to have “faith in the private sector,” or to pursue an “interventionist foreign policy.” They can’t hook up positions with policies. From the point of view of democratic theory, American political history is just a random walk through a series of electoral options. Some years, things turn up red; some years, they turn up blue.

much more at

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?040830crat_atlarge

[bryant69]

3. Well I think it could, but probably won't.

I don't think there are too many people who couldn't rationalize away stories this late in the game. I mean even if they had, say, photos of President George W. Bush shaking Osama Bin Ladin's hands, most people would still say it was a phoney or a fake--that would hold until after the election anyway.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[leftofthedial]

4. probably cost Carter reelection

[grok]

5. Gore *won* 2001 partly due to one

Bush was leading until...

He was FORCED to acknowledge his DUI conviction and it was clearly proved he lied about it.

It clearly made made a difference.

Things are so murky this time i don'k it matters anymore if somebody is proven to his supporters he lied.