The Emotional Voter

[question everything]

Yesterday on MPR I listened to about 10 min. interview with Drew Westen: Author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation." He is a professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, and founder of Westen Strategies.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/07/23/midmorning2/

The part that I heard while driving a short distance was how Kerry lost the campaign.

Westen said that Kerry had an interesting story to tell, that of a Vietnam veteran, a hero who would know how to protect the American people. A leader in the post 9/11 world. But several things derailed him:

First, as the campaign progressed he was cautious about what to say in Michigan or Pennsylvania - two battle ground states - according to what his consultants told him, instead of going with the story.

Second, his advisers suggested to ignore his testimony in the Senate about the atrocities that American troops were committing in Vietnam. This, said Westen, was the signal to Karl Rove and to the Swifters to start attacking. Instead it could have been presented as courage - it took courage to appear in front of the Senate committee and to explain what was happening there.

Third, Westen was talking about Kerry's ad that started telling how he was born in a military base, how his dad served the country. But then he mentioned his "privilege" in attending Yale and this, according to Westen, sank it. Because most Americans do not want their presidents to be smarter then they; and mentioning Yale and privilege only cemented Kerry's image as a "Northeastern Liberal Elite."

(I started listening to the program from the beginning and he analyzed the cold, calculating fact based style of Dukakis and Gore and how the voters usually are looking for emotional connection.)

[emilyg]

1. Interesting.

[gateley]

2. That IS interesting. I feel an emotional connection with my candidate now, but

even though I REALLY wanted Kerry to win, didn't feel that emotional connection (which I only realize now as a result of your post). I wonder if that's why some of us are so passionate about our candidates - that emotional connection.

Thanks for this post!

[Crunchy Frog]

3. Very interesting.

How long is it going to take for our party to finally get it?

[mark414]

4. when you vote with emotion, you get what we have today

and i'm not just talking about george.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. It's unfortunate that people vote based on emotion instead of reason

We have a president right now who acts on feelings instead of rational thought and look at where it has gotten us.

Unfortunately most recent Democratic nominees, Bill Clinton aside, haven't realized that they must match the right wing in appealing to peoples' emotions in order to win elections.

[question everything]

6. I think that Bill Clinton combined both

He clearly connected emotionally - still does - but he ended up a good president, yes, even with NAFTA. Most important - and this is something to remember whoever our candidate is - he appointed Ginsburg and Breyer that, until last year, held the court from going all "Scalias and Thomases."

We can elect our candidates based on fact but we need them to connect to us. This is why talking about everyday matters: health care, school, jobs, retirement, are more important, in the end, than the big issues of Iraq and impeachment. At least, as long as don't have the draft.

This is why the Republicans have been winning with their emotional stuff like abortion and gay rights.

Even the terms that we use. "Pro-life" has a visceral connection, while "pro-choice" is more of consumerism. This is why it was suggested to use a term of privacy, of heart wrenching decision instead of the emotion-neutral choice when it comes to abortion.

This is why Edwards has been talking about his dad and about Elizabeth and about his kids. No, not as elections props but as emotional connections that so many of us can feel.