| If you have watched cable news at all over the past few days, you have heard people raise the prospect of a forthcoming “October Surprise” — a damning storyline that comes out of left field to either end or totally change a candidate’s campaign — that could upend the midterm elections. But what if I told you the October Surprise is not what it used to be? (Before I explain more, I want to acknowledge that I am tempting fate here ... as multiple editors here at The Washington Post have reminded me.) Politics has changed so greatly over the last decade that the idea of one news story remaking an entire election in the final weeks of the campaign is a theory of a bygone era, according to interviews with Republican and Democratic operatives. These operatives argue that hyper-partisan politics, the rise of early voting and the pervasiveness of political communication have changed the political thinking that once explained why campaigns held on to the most damning research they had on their opponents until the final weeks of the campaign. “Voters are tuning in sooner, consuming more information and developing opinions at an earlier date,” said Jesse Hunt, a Republican operative who has worked on House, Senate and gubernatorial races over the course of his career. “In the new era that we have been in ... it’s much more about body blows than haymakers on your opponent’s chin. Anyone can get knocked out, but there are fewer of those.” “The mechanism of voting, both early voting and the nature of how we communicate to voters … just changes how information gets baked in,” said Dan Kanninen, a longtime Democratic operative who recently worked on Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign. “It is hard to see something that could cut through given how the parties behave and how, at this point in an election cycle, they are going to close ranks.” Yes, there are exceptions. In 2022, Republican Herschel Walker’s Senate campaign in Georgia was largely done in by October after reports that he paid for an abortion despite running as a pro-life champion. In 2020, Democrat Cal Cunningham’s Senate campaign in North Carolina was upended after it was revealed he exchanged intimate texts with a woman who is not his wife. Both lost their respective campaigns. And in 2017, around a month before a special election in Alabama, Roy Moore’s campaign was sunk by a Post report that the Republican candidate had initiated a sexual encounter with a girl who was 14 when he was 32. And then there are those October Surprises from decades ago that fizzled. Remember in 2000 when, days before the presidential election, George W. Bush “confirmed last night that he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in Maine” in 1976? “Unless you get a Cal Cunningham-level sex scandal,” Hunt said, “it is really hard to have anything cut through the clutter and the noise that is pumping into voters’ consciences this time of year.” Instead, operatives said major stories that end campaigns are coming earlier in cycles, often ahead of primaries, so parties have time to replace candidates on the ballot. There are three key reasons for this shift: - Early voting: To expand access, many states are starting voting earlier. States like California, Maine and Montana began voting earlier this week, and Iowa, Kansas and North Carolina, among others, will begin next week.
- Changes in political communication: Now, campaigns can push their message earlier and without media involvement through social media and paid communication.
- Self-research: One operative working on House races this cycle said committees and campaigns “have gotten better at recognizing bad candidates early on before it is too late” and “know what to look out for before we fully embrace a candidate, before they become our nominee.”
The October Surprise is not dead. It has just changed. Take Graham Platner, the disgraced former Senate candidate in Maine who ended his campaign after being accused in July of sexually assaulting a woman he dated, despite his denials. The timing of his ouster gave Democrats a chance to replace him on the ballot, a fact Republicans lamented because they, in an ideal world, would have waited to expose the sexual assault story later in the cycle when Platner could not be replaced. And Democrats know that if Platner had made it to October and all these stories had come out, he likely would have lost this November. “There is no point in waiting,” said a Republican operative working on Senate races this cycle. “If you have good oppo, you just drop it.” There are other examples this cycle, like Eric Swalwell’s aborted gubernatorial campaign in California and former congressman Tony Gonzales’s failed campaign for reelection. Those both happened long before October. Then there is what happened in 2016, which featured two unique surprises. Trump has honestly earned his moniker “Teflon Don” by surviving countless stories that likely would have done in past candidates. But no story is as clear as the “Access Hollywood” tape, which this paper broke in October 2016. While the story pushed the Trump campaign to the brink, it did not end his campaign, and he, of course, went on to win the 2016 presidential election. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton faced her own October Surprise when then-FBI director James B. Comey announced he would investigate new Clinton emails found on the laptop of former congressman Anthony Weiner, only to say days before the election that nothing new was found. “I don’t think we should overlearn the lessons here. Both Trump and Hillary were unique figures with decades of public opinion already baked in,” said Jesse Lehrich, a Democratic strategist who worked on Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Trump “managed to recover,” he said, despite Republicans urging him to drop out, before the Comey letter “consumed all the oxygen and reinforced everything people hated” about Clinton. From across the newsroom - Ex-Trump officials seek jobs in Venezuelan oil sector now under U.S. control, from Samantha Schmidt, Anthony Faiola and Karen DeYoung.
- Inside Trump’s push to bring Christopher Columbus to the White House, from Dan Diamond and Olivia George.
- We reviewed $1.6 billion of campaign ads. Here are the takeaways, from Luke Connors, Lydia Sidhom and Laura Beveridge.
- Trump Mobile failed to make required regulatory filings, senator claims, from Gerrit De Vynck.
- Trump wants to turn his West Palm Beach golf club into the new Camp David, from Meryl Kornfield.
- The extraordinary amount of money pouring into the midterm elections, from Amber Phillips.
- Rubio’s speech in Greece hints at grander ambitions, from John Hudson.
What I’m watching Want to know how Trump’s tariff war with Canada is affecting border states? Just look at Michigan Republican Mike Rogers’s latest ad in his contentious Senate race. “Drinking a Labatt and watching the Red Wings, man, it just doesn’t get any more Michigan than that,” Rogers says, beer in hand at a bar. “And here in Michigan, we know that Canada is not our enemy.” “We need to end the tariff war. Now,” he says. Once, though, Rogers was an outspoken supporter of Trump’s tariff policy. I wrote last month about how Trump’s fight with Canada had become a notable issue in the Senate race. Rogers campaign at the time told me that Trump “is right to put America First — and tariffs are necessary, but are not a one-size-fits-all solution.” He blamed Democrats for allowing “jobs to disappear by the hundreds of thousands.” But that is not all. “President Trump’s tariff policies put the American people back in the driver’s seat,” last year, Rogers tweeted with an image of Trump calling people who oppose his tariffs “FOOLS.” “America is winning again!” Rogers wrote. This shift is significant. And it hints that in a border state like Michigan, where acrimony with Canada affects not just cross-border trade, but also tourism and tariffs could play a role in who voters back next month. “Must have had one too many of those LaBatts, Mike,” responded Abdul El-Sayed, Rogers’s Democratic opponent, noting he previously cheered tariffs. Polls have shown the Michigan race moving away from Republicans and Rogers. The party had hoped that Democrats’ nomination of El-Sayed, a more progressive candidate than some Democrats had hoped for, would put the race more clearly in play. Some summer polls also showed Rogers with a slight edge. But recent surveys have had El Sayed with a consistent lead over the Republican. “These ads tell you everything you need to know about who’s winning this race,” wrote Justin Amash, a former Republican congressman from Michigan and frequent Trump critic. In your local paper Tennessee Lookout: Republicans in Tennessee said this week that the state’s legislature would investigate other execution methods after the failed lethal injection of inmate Christa Pike. Louisiana Illuminator: State officials in Louisiana are blaming “human error” after a mishap accidentally switched the status of 67,000 Louisiana voters to inactive. Officials say the issue has been corrected. Iowa Capital Dispatch: Need proof that Republicans are particularly worried about diesel prices? A day after Trump announced an executive order that “would authorize highway use of dyed diesel fuel and defer the federal excise tax on the fuel,” Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins pushed governors to take the same action. Diesel prices hit all-time highs in September. From you It’s pretty clear that many of you feel bringing home federal money is critical to a politician’s success or failure. But many of you also said it isn’t everything. “Not only should they pay attention to the overall US situation, but also to the issues in the state that elected them,” wrote Phil Morris. “Additionally, this technique has been one of the few ways to get members of the opposing party to create a bipartisan coalition strong enough to get the bill through Congress.” Bruce Berkowtiz added: “Bringing home federal money certainly seems like a good thing but I wonder who actually benefits? Is it all residents of the state, particular residents in certain industries or the people connected to the Senator and their pet projects? ... We need more transparency about where the money goes and who benefits at the expense of others.” This question stemmed from my reporting on the Maine Senate race, where Sen. Susan Collins (R) is explicitly running on her ability to steer federal dollars to the state. In the first debate between Collins and Democrat Troy Jackson, the Republican senator opened the debate by boasting about all the money she brings home. “In most elections, I don’t see how it could not matter. In this election, it seems all voters think Trump is on the ballot. Full stop,” wrote John Perryman. Send a reply This piece by George F. Will about Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis is fascinating. The Republican senator has become the most outspoken critic of “members of presidential families using their names and proximity to the President to advance private business interests.” He is calling out Hunter Biden and Donald Trump Jr. and has urged Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to subpoena both. What do you think? Should the Senate investigate the younger Biden and Trump? Do you worry about the way presidential children have used their power and influence? Let me and your fellow Early Brief readers know at earlytips@washpost.com. Thanks for reading. You can follow me on X at @merica. | 
Listen to this brefing
