Mikulski vs. Chavez for the senate from Maryland in 1986 and the “rules”; for attack politics

This essay re‐examines the status of rules governing attack politics. Pfau & Kenski (1990) suggest that the 1986 Maryland Senate race between Barbara Mikulski and Linda Chavez did not follow the normal course; it, however, is not an exception. Chavez's attacks were probably effective in increasing anti‐Mikulski votes and in raising pro‐Chavez money. Mikulski did indeed respond in several ways, effectively maintaining her large lead. Chavez tried to exercise care when she attacked; nonetheless, her attacks produced a sizeable backlash among voters. The 1986 campaign therefore problematizes previous work on women and attack politics, necessitating a careful and perhaps gender‐specific definition of “sufficient care.”; That Chavez's attacks were effective and that Mikulski did respond in several ways furthermore suggest the need to define the terms “effect”; and “response”; more broadly than they have been in the recent literature on attack politics.

Key concepts:

• Mikulski
• Chavez
• attack politics
• negative campaigning
• political campaigns
• political campaign advertising
• political campaign debates