When people express hate for a particular candidate or party, this hate has the potential of causing weak supporters or those who are undecided to avoid supporting or associated with the hated party because they don't want to be hated themselves. Does this make hate one of if not the most effective political tactics?

You are begging the question - your initial assumption is not unarguable. The rabidity (is that a word?) of the reaction against both Obama and Palin in the last few years in American politics has, I think, benefited them. Undecided voters were swayed by the vitriol and moved AWAY from those espousing it - ie not so much as "I don't want to be hated" but more along the lines of "I don't want to align myself with the haters"

When people express hate for a particular candidate or party, this hate has the potential of causing weak supporters or those who are undecided to avoid supporting or associated with the hated party because they don't want to be hated themselves. Does this make hate one of if not the most effective political tactics?

 

Why use the word "hate"? This loaded word implies a violent, irrational emotion. And sounds nasty.

 

That's why the word "hate" is a favourite of politically-correct people. They want to make anyone who disagrees with their ludicrous beliefs, sound nasty.

You are begging the question - your initial assumption is not unarguable. The rabidity (is that a word?) of the reaction against both Obama and Palin in the last few years in American politics has, I think, benefited them. Undecided voters were swayed by the vitriol and moved AWAY from those espousing it - ie not so much as "I don't want to be hated" but more along the lines of "I don't want to align myself with the haters"

That's a good point. That's what turned me from being a Bush critic to a Bush-supporter. I don't know if this effect is as common-sensical as simply distancing oneself from what popular opinion deems hated. It is popular to support a popularly recognized underdog but unpopular to support a person deemed a popular enemy (that is my impression anyway).

 

Why use the word "hate"? This loaded word implies a violent, irrational emotion. And sounds nasty.

It obfuscates a lot to avoid calling hate "hate." I think I am reasonably neutral when evaluating the media treatment of public figures. When I see snickering in the chastizing of Sarah Palin, it is not because I love her and want her to win. It's the same as when I see snickering about Obama's birth certificate issues and it is clear that the emotions go far beyond any rationally planned approach to organizing political inclusion/exclusion on the basis of national citizenship.

 

That's why the word "hate" is a favourite of politically-correct people. They want to make anyone who disagrees with their ludicrous beliefs, sound nasty.

That's reactionist posturing obfuscation nonsense. I'm talking about actual hate being expressed, overtly or covertly, in order to manipulate people into siding with the haters/bullies against the hated/bullied. It's just like picking a kid in the school yard and picking on him until no one wants to be his friend anymore because they're afraid of getting bullied with him.

 

 

I'm talking about actual hate being expressed, overtly or covertly, in order to manipulate people into siding with the haters/bullies against the hated/bullied. It's just like picking a kid in the school yard and picking on him until no one wants to be his friend anymore because they're afraid of getting bullied with him.

 

 

 

The reaction is a function of one's moral character. That strategy could also result in someone who thinks for himself, who would otherwise be indifferent, stepping in to protect the bullied from the bully.