VIRGINIA, USA: Every election season, the phrase “October surprise” gets thrown around like an ominous warning—something unexpected, some scandal or game-changing event that flips the script right before Election Day. It’s the political equivalent of a plot twist in a thriller movie. Candidates brace themselves for it, strategists anticipate it, and voters become increasingly anxious about what might be revealed. However, the real surprise might not come in the form of some bombshell revelation. Instead, it will likely stem from a deeper issue that has plagued elections for years: the false sense of security voters get when they think their candidate is winning. This mindset, fueled by media narratives and polls, lulls people into complacency, and that’s where the true danger lies.
Polling, over the years, has become the go-to metric for predicting election outcomes. It’s no surprise then that when poll numbers are favorable, supporters of a candidate begin to relax, believing that victory is inevitable. However, history has proven time and again that polls can be deceptive and wrong. The voters who believe their candidate is winning based on polls often assume their vote is unnecessary because the outcome seems secure. They don’t show up at the polls, and suddenly, the tide shifts dramatically.
Let’s go back to one of the most infamous examples of polling failure: the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Polls consistently showed Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by comfortable margins. The RealClearPolitics average of national polls on November 7, 2016, had Clinton up by 3.2 points. On Election Day, she did win the popular vote by 2.1%, but that didn’t translate into an Electoral College victory. Trump’s path to 270 electoral votes shocked pundits, the media, and even some of his own supporters. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were all considered part of Clinton’s “blue wall,” yet Trump won all three states, collectively by a margin of about 77,000 votes. Polling in those states was wrong, with some showing Clinton up by 5 to 7 points in the final weeks.
Another example of polling failure can be found in the 1948 presidential election between Harry Truman and Thomas Dewey. Newspapers famously printed headlines declaring Dewey the winner before the votes were even fully counted, based on early returns and polling data that suggested Truman was far behind. Truman, however, had run a relentless campaign, traveling the country by train and rallying working-class voters to his side. Pollsters had stopped collecting data weeks before the election, assuming Dewey’s lead was insurmountable. The result? Truman won with 303 electoral votes to Dewey’s 189, leaving the media and the political class completely blindsided.
We’ve seen similar patterns in more recent elections too. The 2020 election was expected to bring a “blue wave,” with Democrats predicted to not only win the presidency but also expand their majority in the House of Representatives and possibly take the Senate. While Joe Biden did win the presidency, the blue wave failed to materialize down-ballot. Republicans gained seats in the House, and the Senate remained split until the Georgia runoff elections. In key swing states like Florida, polling had Biden ahead, but Trump won the state comfortably by over 3 points. Once again, the discrepancy between polls and actual voter turnout was stark. Republican voters, especially in rural areas, turned out in droves, while Democrats failed to meet the inflated expectations set by pollsters.
The lesson here is simple: no matter how favorable the polls look, no matter how confident the media and pundits are about the outcome, the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day. The group that turns out in force is the one that will decide the future, not the group that sits back, lulled into complacency by favorable poll numbers or media narratives.
The 2024 election will be no different. Media outlets will relentlessly cover polling data in the final weeks, claiming that one candidate is leading comfortably while the other is trailing. But these polls should be taken with a grain of caution. As we’ve seen in past elections, a 3-point lead in a poll can translate into a loss depending on how turnout breaks down. The “silent majority” or unexpected voters can swing an election, especially when one group assumes victory is already in the bag.
Let’s look at some data. In the 2016 election, according to the Pew Research Center, voter turnout among rural white voters jumped significantly, with 65% of eligible voters in this group casting a ballot. In contrast, African-American turnout, which had reached historic highs during Obama’s elections, fell to 59.6% in 2016, down from 66.6% in 2012. Clinton’s campaign focused heavily on winning over suburban and urban voters, but Trump’s appeal to rural America paid off big time. In counties where at least 85% of residents are white, Trump won by an average of 34 points. These were voters the polls didn’t account for adequately, and they turned out in higher numbers than expected.
Moreover, complacency is an insidious trap, and the media’s portrayal of a frontrunner can exacerbate the problem. When supporters feel like their candidate is already winning, they become less motivated to vote. A study by the American Journal of Political Science found that perceptions of a candidate’s likelihood of winning significantly affect voter turnout. If voters believe their candidate has a high probability of winning, they are more likely to stay home, assuming their vote isn’t needed. This is a dangerous mindset that can lead to surprising election outcomes.
There is also the “enthusiasm gap” to consider. The 2024 election could very well hinge on this factor. In past elections, candidates with more enthusiastic voter bases have often outperformed their polling numbers. In 2016, Trump’s rallies were packed with fervent supporters, while Clinton’s campaign events were smaller and less energized. Similarly, in 2020, Trump maintained a highly enthusiastic base, despite losing the election. Enthusiasm translates directly into turnout. According to a Gallup poll before the 2020 election, 64% of Trump supporters were “extremely enthusiastic” about voting, compared to 47% of Biden supporters.
The true winner in any election isn’t the candidate leading in the polls, but the one whose supporters show up on Election Day, regardless of the narrative. Media spin, political punditry, and pollsters may predict outcomes, but history shows that predictions can easily be wrong. In 2024, as with every election, the side that turns out with energy, enthusiasm, and commitment will be the one that wins. Polls may tell you who’s ahead, but they can’t measure passion or predict the future with certainty.
So as we move closer to Election Day, let’s remember that the real “October surprise” may not be some last-minute scandal or revelation. The surprise might just be the simple fact that a group of voters, written off by pollsters or the media, turned out in force and changed the course of history once again. Don’t let polls fool you into thinking victory is assured. The race is won by the people who show up—not the ones who watch the numbers from the sidelines.
“The Don’t Unfriend Me Show” explores a broad range of political themes, from satire to serious topics, with Matt Speer, a Navy Intel veteran, husband, and father, leading the show. Matt shares his views to stimulate constructive discussions. The show aims to provide a balanced perspective on complex issues, welcoming participants of all political affiliations to share their unique viewpoints.