Question: Has there ever been a real "backlash" against negative attacks?

[Democat]

We keep hearing about "backlash" here on DU and from other sources. From the Swift ads to the Kitty Kelly book, someone is always predicting a "backlash" against negative stories about a candidate.

Bush's campaign was all Kerry bashing , there was going to be a backlash.
Michael Moore made some offensive comments, there was going to be a backlash.
When the Swift Liars ads came out, there was going to be a backlash.
When the RNC was mostly Kerry bashing, there was going to be a backlash.
When Zell Miller went crazy on TV, there was going to be a backlash.

None of these "backlashes" ever happened - or not with enough people to even notice.

When, in recent political history, has there actually been a backlash against negative attacks?

You could argue that there was a backlash against the Clinton impeachment, but a big part of that "backlash" was that those on the left actually went after some of the impeachment leaders, exposing their own cheating and spending time and money to defeat them. However, in the next election after the impeachment, the Republicans took over the White House and they currently control every branch of government. Clinton was damaged forever by the attacks and we lost the White House shortly after, not much of a "backlash".

Some might argue that the late attacks on Arnold during the recall helped him more than hurt him. The fact is that Arnold was well on his way to winning, no matter what happened in that race and there is no way to tell if there was any backlash at all.

Can someone point out a case in recent politics where you can show a definite "backlash" against negative attacks - one where it led to the person being attacked benefiting more than the people making the attacks?

[troublemaker]

1. Not in a presidential election (eom)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Negative attacks don't always work if that's what you mean

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=660011

[Democat]

3. Thank you!

That's exactly what I was looking for! :)

I'm not sure that I agree with the point of one poster in that thread about the Clinton impeachment. Clinton is tarnished forever and within a few years the Republicans controlled every branch of the government. In the big picture, the Republicans probably won that fight.

[Dob Bole]

4. I think Zell might have "backlashed"...

Bush wound up with only a 2-pt bounce from his convention, when even people who lose get 6. Of course, Hurricane Frances and Bill Clinton probably had an equal role to play in this.

[wurzel]

5. Only if Democrats run them.

Willy Horton: No Backlash. Swiftboat Liars: No backlash. Bush AWOL: Backlash big time.

[Alenne]

6. Negative attacks work

Candidates wouldn't keep using them if they didn't work. There is no backlash and most people remember the negative things said.