For centuries, emotions and reason have been perceived as two distinct and unrelated concepts. While reason and rationality were considered as necessary in order to attain accurate judgements, democratic theory has perceived emotionality as detrimental to the democratic process leading to the forging of suboptimal solutions. Therefore, citizens were required to form opinions about politics through conscious thought and rational arguments.  However, more recent research suggests that affect and reason are more closely intertwined than previously thought. Evidence in political psychology shows that emotions unavoidably shape how individuals interact and approach their environment and politics. Emotional reactions influence (often outside of conscious awareness) a multitude of cognitive processes such as information processing, attitude formation, and political behavior. Based on these findings, this dissertation puts forward two central arguments. First, considering the impact of emotional reactions on individuals, political actors should have an interest in appealing to emotions in order to influence citizens. In other words, politicians and parties should strategically employ emotional rhetoric in their communication. Second, politicians should not only employ general ‘emotional’ language, but appeal to distinct emotions which, depending on the political context, benefit them electorally. This argument is based on empirical evidence that shows how different emotions can have diverging political consequences.  To empirically test these arguments, the dissertation advances in two steps. First, it provides, compares, and validates novel computational text analysis tools to measure discrete emotional rhetoric in political text. In the second part, then, it empirically measures determinants of emotional language in political discourse. To do so, it analyzes a variety of factors such as ideology, inter-party influence, and increasing salience of contested political issues while relying on a series of different analytical strategies. Despite these differences, the papers share the emphasis on the importance of distinct emotional appeals and their strategic use in political discourse.