The unfortunate thing about Westen's book is that he probably is correct in describing how our brains respond to emotional political adds rather than on the basic facts behind them. Weston provides examples of well planned political speeches from the past, and effective political ads from previous elections (mostly all Republican ads), and explains why they grabbed the listeners on an emotional level. A life-long Democrat, Weston also bemoans the lack of effective responses or campaigns of the Democratic Party on a National level, with few exceptions. His writing tends to evolve into recommendations for Democratic candidates in general. Ultimately, his insights and recommendations are interesting, but the unfortunate thing, and his point, is that more and more, future campaigns are likely to be decided by clever adds than by the policies and ideas of the candidates. ( )

Honestly, I really wanted to like this book more than I did. As another reviewer here says, the book starts off pretty well, but after a while it becomes clear that the author desperately needed a better editor. The author tends to go on and on about how Republicans are bad at handling certain situations such as interviews, crises, etc.

Politically I would normally agree with the author, but his writing was just so incredibly dense. Some of my problem may also be the fact that I'm familiar with quite a few topics and found some of the material quite repetitive. The author discusses political psychology through the lens of race, ads,taxes, special interests, and more. If you have any interest in any of the topics he writes about, it's not a bad book to read. However, I would not recommend buying it full price, but instead bargain or borrow it from the library or elsewhere. ( )

The sub-title of this book is, 'The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation' and, this perhaps sums up the main point of this work better than the actual title.

It is, of course, a very valid point that politicians need to engage their emotions in an election. Whilst the public will say that facts are the main requirement, the truth is that we lead busy lives and the general public do not have the time, or frankly the inclination, to study all the issues. If something is having a direct effect, at the moment, then one is in tune, otherwise, the politician needs to convince us that he/she is 'one of us'. In Great Britain, this has been done by Nigel Farage, and in the US by Mr Trump. It takes very little study to realise that both are the ultimate establishment figures and yet, our desire to believe otherwise has seen them through.

Drew Weston does not advocate these false sentiments, but suggests that true feelings are vital. There is much to be learned from this book but, one must remember that, under the archaic systems, of both countries, the colour of your money is a better indicator of success. ( )

Fascinating and important book about how voters reach decisions on how to cast their votes. It's not logic and reason and measured views on policy, people, it's emotion. And that's why the results of elections can often seem so odd, given the expressed views of the electorate. This book goes a long way to explaining why U.S. voters, in particular, seem so unresponsive to arguments directed to their assumed self-interest (from Democrats) and so responsive to emotional appeals (from Republicans). I which more Democratic political operatives would read this, and act upon it. ( )

When I picked up this book, I was expecting a more rigorous psychological analysis. This book was actually a purely political commentary on how the Democrats are not as good as the Republicans in appealing to the emotions of potential voters. It came with lots of examples of advertisements and campaign gimmicks which either appeal or don’t appeal to emotions.

Unfortunately, Westen is just a little too militantly Democratic to make this book truly good. He used the opportunity to criticize Republican policies and almost made it sound like racism was part of the Republican platform. He also tended to make very generalized comments on how people really feel about issues, without providing any strong evidence. For instance, he gave an example of how he and his wife felt when they had an (unfortunate) late-term miscarriage—they were happy when a nurse finally referred to the remains as “the fetal remains” instead of “your baby.” He then said: “This shows you how most people feel about late term fetuses. Even though they are very sad to have lost the fetus, they still don’t feel that it is their baby.” (Or something along those lines.) Although I don’t object to his feelings on this subject, he shouldn’t give an example of how ONE couple feels as proof that most people feel that way. I could as easily come up with someone who feels the opposite and come to the conclusion that everyone feels THAT way, instead.

In other words, don’t read it as a scholarly psychological analysis, but as a partisan political book that makes some interesting points. ( )