persuasive speech about presidential election

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

10 Modern Presidential Speeches Every American Should Know

By: Allison McNearney

Updated: October 18, 2023 | Original: February 16, 2018

Presidential speeches reveal the United States’ challenges, hopes, dreams and temperature of the nation, as much as they do the wisdom and perspective of the leader speaking them. Even in the age of Twitter, the formal, spoken word from the White House carries great weight and can move, anger or inspire at home and around the world.

Here are the 10 most important modern presidential speeches selected by scholars at the Miller Center —a nonpartisan affiliate of the University of Virginia that specializes in presidential scholarship—and professors from other universities, as well.

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s First Inaugural Address

When: 1933, during the Great Depression

What Roosevelt Said: “This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself… Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war.”

Why It Was Important: Roosevelt is embarking on something audacious, proposing that the national government has an obligation to provide an economic safety net for its citizens to protect them from the unpredictability of the market. In making a case for bold intervention in markets, he’s also making a case for a stronger executive at the top. But for all the disruptive talk in this speech, Roosevelt delivers reassurance. I think a hallmark of the speeches that we remember the most by presidents from both parties are ones that not only address the circumstances at hand, but also give people some hope.

— Margaret O’Mara, professor of history, University of Washington

2. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s First Fireside Chat 'On Banking'

When: March 1933

What Roosevelt Said: “My friends, I want to talk for a few minutes with the people of the United States about banking…confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. You people must have faith. You must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses. Let us unite in banishing fear. We have provided the machinery to restore our financial system, and it is up to you to support and make it work. It is your problem, my friends. Your problem no less than it is mine. Together, we cannot fail.”

Why It Was Important: Beginning with the simple phrase, “My friends,” the stage was set for the personalization of the presidency that continued throughout FDR’s administration. Roosevelt received an outpouring of support from the public and used the power of media to connect with his constituents. Recognizing publicity as essential to policymaking, he crafted a very intricate public relations plan for all of his New Deal legislation. The media allowed him to present a very carefully crafted message that was unfiltered and unchallenged by the press. Many newspapers were critical of his New Deal programs, so turning to radio and motion pictures allowed him to present his version of a particular policy directly to the people. Today, we see parallels in the use of Twitter to bypass opponents and critics of the administration to appeal directly to the American people. And that all started with FDR and his first fireside chat.

— Kathryn Cramer Brownell, Assistant Professor of History, Purdue University

3. Dwight Eisenhower’s 'Atoms for Peace' Speech to the United Nations

What Eisenhower Said: “I feel impelled to speak today in a language that, in a sense, is new. One which I, who have spent so much of my life in the military profession, would have preferred never to use: That new language is the language of atomic warfare…Against the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United States does not wish merely to present strength, but also the desire and the hope for peace. To the makers of these fateful decisions, the United States pledges before you, and therefore before the world, its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma. To devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.”

Why It Was Important: Eisenhower believed in the political power of nuclear weapons, but in this speech, he talks about their dangers. He speaks about the importance of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and proposes that the U.S. and Soviet Union cooperate to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. Keep in mind that there were just 1,300 nuclear weapons in the world in 1953 compared with more than seven times that number today. But Eisenhower is also a realist. He understands the importance of nuclear deterrence and he reminds his audience that his proposal comes from a position of American strength, not weakness.

— Todd Sechser, Professor of Politics, University of Virginia and Senior Fellow, Miller Center

4. Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

What Eisenhower Said: “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportion…In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic process.”

Why It Was Important: That speech gave a name to our modern era. Eisenhower was telling us that we now live in a time when government, the military and the corporate world all have joined together into a powerful alliance that shapes the basic democratic functioning of the country. Eisenhower understood that Americans wanted both security and liberty, and it’s a fundamental paradox of the American experiment. In order to have security, we need to have a large defense establishment. But he asks, who is going to be the guardian of our freedoms in a world where we have to have a permanent arms industry? What he was saying in the speech is that we have to learn how to live with it, and control it, rather than having it control us.

— Will Hitchcock, Randolph P. Compton Professor at the Miller Center and professor of history, University of Virginia

5. Lyndon B. Johnson’s 'Great Society' Speech at the University of Michigan

When: May 22, 1964

What Johnson Said: “For a century, we labored to settle and to subdue a continent. For half a century, we called upon unbounded invention and untiring industry to create an order of plenty for all of our people. The challenge of the next half-century is whether we have the wisdom to use that wealth to enrich and elevate our national life, and to advance the quality of our American civilization. Your imagination and your initiative and your indignation will determine whether we build a society where progress is the servant of our needs, or a society where old values and new visions are buried under unbridled growth. For, in your time, we have the opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society, but upward to the Great Society. “

Why It Was Important: LBJ called on all Americans to move upward to a Great Society in which wealth is used for more than personal enrichment and is instead used to improve communities, protect the natural world, and allow all Americans, regardless of race or class, to fully develop their innate talents and abilities. The message of Johnson’s speech resonates today because we have lost not only that self-confidence and that idealism but also the vision to recognize that prosperity can be used for something greater than the self.

— Guian McKee, Associate Professor of Presidential Studies, the Miller Center

6. John F. Kennedy’s Address on the Space Effort

When: September 1962

What Kennedy Said: “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the Industrial Revolution, the first waves of modern invention and the first wave of nuclear power. And this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space, we mean to be a part of it, we mean to lead it.”

Why It Was Important: We were in a new age of technology and space exploration. President Kennedy made Americans feel that there was nothing that we couldn’t do, no challenge we couldn’t conquer. It was before Vietnam, before Watergate, before the deaths of our heroes like Jack and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King —when we had a sense in this country that if we all joined together we could fulfill our loftiest goals.

— Barbara Perry, Director of Presidential Studies, the Miller Center

7. Ronald Reagan’s Speech Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of D-Day

When: June 6, 1984

What Reagan Said: “The rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades, and the American rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs they began to seize back the continent of Europe… (to veterans) You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and Democracy is worth dying for because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

Why It’s Important: That day in June of 1984, before  Band of Brothers  and  Saving Private Ryan  ever came to be, President Reagan paid tribute to the heroism of those we now call the Greatest Generation, the men and women who liberated Europe and ensured freedom for generations to come.  But for the first time, he also tied resistance to totalitarianism in World War II to opposition to the Soviet Union during the Cold War . President Reagan’s words at the end of that speech, again in the second person, to our Allies that “we were with you then, and we are with you now,” when he called upon the West to “renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it” kept the coalition in place that later defeated the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War. The “boys of Pointe du Hoc” saved the world, and, in many ways, they did so more than once.

— Mary Kate Cary, Senior Fellow, the Miller Center

8. Ronald Reagan’s Address on the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster

When: January 1986

What Reagan Said: “The future doesn’t belong to the faint-hearted but to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we’ll continue to follow them…The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye, and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God.”

Why It Was Important: In our current era of political divisiveness, we tend to think of presidents as partisan leaders. But the president’s role as “comforter in chief” is one of the most important functions. The great presidents are distinguished by their ability to set aside partisanship in times of tragedy to speak words that comfort a nation and remind us that, despite our differences, we are all, in the end, Americans.

— Chris Lu, Senior Fellow, the Miller Center

9. George W. Bush’s 'Get On Board' Speech

When: After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks

What Bush Said: “When they struck they wanted to create an atmosphere of fear, and one of the great goals of this war is…to tell the traveling public: Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America’s great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life the way we want it to be enjoyed.”

Why It Was Important: In short, Bush was saying don’t let the terrorists deter you from spending—the economy needs you. More specifically, Bush’s remarks demonstrated the importance that consumption had come to play in the economy by the twenty-first century. He was carrying out what had become an essential responsibility of the 21st-century president. Even as Bush modeled what it meant to be a strong commander in chief, he juggled another role that had become almost as important: “consumer in chief.”

— Brian Balogh, Dorothy Compton Professor of History, the Miller Center

10. Barack Obama’s 'A More Perfect Union' Speech

What Obama Said: “Contrary to the claim of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve to think as to believe we can get beyond our racial divisions on a single election cycle or with a single candidate, particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own. But I have asserted a firm conviction, a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people, that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice. We have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union…What we know, what we have seen, is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope, the audacity to hope, for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”

Why It Was Important: Conventional wisdom wouldn’t recommend a speech on race. But Obama ran to the challenge, not away from it. Uniquely positioned to do so, he welcomed listeners to places many have never experienced—a predominantly black church, a cringe-worthy conversation with a beloved relative of a different race, the kitchen tables of white Americans who feel resentful and left behind—and he recounted Americans often divergent perspectives. He asked us to be honest about our past while connecting it to the structural barriers faced by African Americans and other people of color today…Direct, honest, but nuanced, Obama believed that most Americans were ready to hear the truth and make a choice, to move beyond racial stalemate, face our challenges, and act accordingly.

 — Melody Barnes, a Senior Fellow, the Miller Center

The American Presidency with Bill Clinton

Explore the history of the U.S. presidency across six themed episodes: race, extremism, the struggle for rights, presidential vision and global power. 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Help inform the discussion

The Presidency / Presidential Speeches

Famous presidential speeches.

Use the "Filter" button to select a particular president and find the speech you want

HeinOnline Blog

The 15 most inspiring presidential speeches in american history.

• By Tara Kibler
• February 15, 2021
• History , Political Science

Over the centuries, millions upon millions of words have been used by U.S. presidents to motivate, caution, reassure, and guide the American people. Whether written in the news, spoken at a podium, or shared on Twitter, all of these words have carried weight, each with the potential to impact the trajectory of our nation. Only a handful of times, however, has the particular arrangement and context of these words been considered truly inspiring.

This Presidents’ Day, join HeinOnline in rediscovering some of the greatest presidential speeches in American history using our   U.S. Presidential Library  and other sources.

1. Washington’s Farewell Address

Date:  September 17th, 1796

Context:  Toward the end of his second term as the first U.S. president, George Washington announced his retirement from office in a letter addressed to the American people. Though many feared for a United States without Washington, the address reassured the young nation that it no longer required his leadership. Washington also used the opportunity to offer advice for the prosperity of the country. After witnessing the growing division between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties, much of his advice was to warn against political parties, factions, and other animosities (domestic and foreign) that would eventually undermine the integrity and efficacy of the American government.

Notable Quote:  “This spirit [of party], unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind … [but] the disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions … A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

2. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

Date:  November 19, 1863

Context:  Four months after Union armies defeated Confederates at Gettysburg during the American Civil War, President Lincoln visited the site to dedicate the Soldiers’ National Cemetery. In what were intended to be brief, appropriate remarks for the situation, Lincoln used the moment to offer his take on the war and its meaning. The ten sentences he spoke would ultimately become one of the most famous speeches in American history, an inspiration for notable remarks centuries later, and even a foundation for the wording of other countries’ constitutions.

Notable Quote:  “… from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they heregave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that the dead shall not have died in vain; that the Nation shall under God have a new birth of freedom, and that Governments of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

3. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Inaugural Address

Date:  March 4, 1933

Context:  The inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt was held as the country was in the throes of the Great Depression, and as such, America anxiously awaited what he had to say. Roosevelt did not disappoint, offering 20 minutes of reassurance, hope, and promises for urgent action.

Notable Quote:  “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is … fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.”

4. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s First Fireside Chat

Date:  March 12, 1933

Context:  Just a few days after his inauguration, Roosevelt instituted what he called “fireside chats,” using the relatively new technology of radio to enter the living rooms of Americans and discuss current issues. In these moments, he could speak at length, unfiltered and uninterrupted by the press, while also offering a reassuring, optimistic tone that might otherwise have been lost in the written word. In this first fireside chat, he crafted a message to explain the American banking process (and its current difficulties) in a way that the average listener could understand.

Notable Quote:  “Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. You people must have faith. You must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses. Let us unite in banishing fear. We have provided the machinery to restore our financial system, and it is up to you to support and make it work. It is your problem, my friends. Your problem no less than it is mine. Together, we cannot fail.”

5. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” Speech

Date:  January 6, 1941

Context:  By 1941, many affected by the Great Depression had experienced economic recovery, but another world-changing phenomenon had reared its head—Hitler and his Nazi regime. World War II was raging in Europe and the Pacific, but the United States had thus far remained largely neutral. In light of the atrocities occurring overseas, Roosevelt sought to change that. He crafted his State of the Union address that January to highlight four freedoms which are deserved by all humans everywhere. The “Four Freedoms” speech, as it was ultimately known, later became the basis for  America’s intervention in World War II  and significantly influenced American values, life, and politics moving forward.

Notable Quote:  “In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace of time life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction, armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.”

6. Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” Speech

Date:  December 8, 1953

Context:  During World War II, Roosevelt formally authorized the Manhattan Project, a top-secret U.S. effort to weaponize nuclear energy. By 1945,  America had successfully created the atomic bomb , and President Truman had authorized its detonation in Japan’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leveling the two cities and killing hundreds of thousands of people. Following the end of World War II, political and economic differences between the United States and Soviet Union drove the two countries to another war soon after, but this time, the Soviet Union had their own atomic bomb as well. The world was teetering on a frightening ledge built by access to nuclear power, causing President Eisenhower to launch an “emotion management” campaign with this speech to the United Nations about the very real risks but also peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Notable Quote:  “… the whole book of history reveals mankind’s never-ending quest for peace and mankind’s God-given capacity to build. It is with the book of history, and not with isolated pages, that the United States will ever wish to be identified. My country wants to be constructive, not destructive. It wants agreements, not wars, among nations. It wants itself to live in freedom and in the confidence that the peoples of every other nation enjoy equally the right of choosing their own way of life. … The United States knows that if the fearful trend of atomic military build-up can be reversed, this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind.”

7. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

Date:  January 17, 1961

Context:  As he came to the end of his term, President Eisenhower found himself in a nation much stronger, much richer, and much more advanced than when he began. Prepared as early as two years in advance, his farewell address acknowledged the pride all should have in these achievements, but also served to ground the American people in sobering reality—that how the United States uses this power and standing will ultimately determine its fate. Like Washington, his address was one of caution against dangers such as massive spending, an overpowered military industry, and Federal domination of scientific progress (or vice versa, the scientific-technological domination of public policy). In all things, he stressed the need to maintain balance as the country moves forward, for the preservation of liberty.

Notable Quote:  “Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.”

8. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address

Date:  January 20, 1961

Context:  A few days after Eisenhower’s farewell speech, he turned over his office to the youngest-ever elected president, John F. Kennedy. Kennedy now found himself faced with the monumental task of strengthening the United States while also quelling American anxieties about the Cold War and avoiding nuclear warfare. His speech thus focused on unity, togetherness, and collaboration both domestically and abroad.

Notable Quote:  “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

9. Kennedy’s “We Choose to Go to the Moon” Speech

Date:  September 12, 1962

Context:  In the name of national security, the United States and USSR set their sights on spaceflight as a top priority during the Cold War. To the surprise (and fear) of people around the globe, the Soviet Union launched the first-ever artificial satellite in 1957, then sent the first human being into space in 1961, signaling to onlookers that its nation was a technological force to be reckoned with. Kennedy was determined to come up with a challenge in space technology that the United States actually stood a chance to win. In the early ’60s, he proposed that America focus on putting a man on the moon. In an uplifting speech at Rice University, Kennedy reminded his listeners of the country’s technological progress so far and of his administration’s determination to continue the pioneering spirit of early America into the new frontier of space.

Notable Quote:  “We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

Read about America’s successful moon landing in this blog post.

10. Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” Speech

Date:  May 22, 1964

Context:  Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as President in 1963, immediately following  Kennedy’s assassination . Johnson vowed to continue the former president’s work on poverty, civil rights, and other issues. Inspired in part by FDR’s New Deal, he devised a set of programs intended to completely eliminate poverty and racial injustice. In 1964, he formally proposed some specific goals in a speech to the University of Michigan, where he coined the lofty ideal of a “Great Society.”

Notable Quote:  “Your imagination, your initiative, and your indignation will determine whether we build a society where progress is the servant of our needs, or a society where old values and new visions are buried under unbridled growth. For in your time we have the opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society, but upward to the Great Society.”

11. Lyndon B. Johnson’s “We Shall Overcome” Speech

Date:  March 15, 1965

Context:  By the 1960s, blacks in areas of the Deep South found themselves disenfranchised by state voting laws, such as those requiring a poll tax, literacy tests, or knowledge of the U.S. constitution. Furthermore, these laws were sometimes applied subjectively, leading to the prevention of even educated blacks from voting or registering to vote. Inspired (and sometimes joined) by Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., protests were planned throughout the region. Eight days after racial violence erupted around one of these protests in Selma, Alabama, President Johnson addressed Congress to declare that “every American citizen must have an equal right to vote” and that discriminatory policies were denying African-Americans that right.

Notable Quote:  “What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and State of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it’s not just Negroes, but really it’s all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome …

“This great, rich, restless country can offer opportunity and education and hope to all, all black and white, all North and South, sharecropper and city dweller. These are the enemies: poverty, ignorance, disease. They’re our enemies, not our fellow man, not our neighbor. And these enemies too—poverty, disease, and ignorance: we shall overcome.”

12. Reagan’s D-Day Anniversary Address

Date:  June 6, 1984

Context:  During World War II, the Allied forces attacked German troops on the coast of Normandy, France on June 6, 1944. A turning point for the war, the day came to be known as D-Day, and its anniversary is forever acknowledged. On its 40th anniversary, President Ronald Reagan honored the heroes of that day in a speech that also invoked a comparison of World War II’s Axis dictators to the Soviet Union during the ongoing Cold War. This reminder to the Allies that they once fought together against totalitarianism and must continue the fight now helped contribute to the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Notable Quote:  “We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest. There must be a changing there that will allow us to turn our hope into action. We will pray forever that some day that changing will come. But for now, particularly today, it is good and fitting to renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it. We are bound today by what bound us 40 years ago, the same loyalties, traditions, and beliefs. We’re bound by reality. The strength of America’s allies is vital to the United States, and the American security guarantee is essential to the continued freedom of Europe’s democracies. We were with you then; we are with you now. Your hopes are our hopes, and your destiny is our destiny.”

13. Reagan’s Berlin Wall Speech

Date:  June 12, 1987

Context:  With the fall of Nazi Germany at the end of World War II, Western powers and the Soviet Union sought to establish systems of government in their respective occupied regions. West Germany developed into a Western capitalist country, with a democratic parliamentary government, while East Germany became a socialist workers’ state (though it was often referred to as communist in the English-speaking world). Many experiencing hunger, poverty, and repression in the Soviet-influenced East Germany attempted to move west, with the City of Berlin their main point of crossing. Ultimately, the Soviet Union advised East Germany to build a wall on the inner German border, restricting movement and emigration by threat of execution for attempted emigrants. Seen as a symbol of Communist tyranny by Western nations, the Berlin Wall persisted for nearly three decades. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan visited West Berlin and called upon Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to take down the wall as a symbol of moving forward.

Notable Quote:  “We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

14. George W. Bush’s Post-9/11 Speech

Date:  September 11, 2001

Context:  On September 11, 2001, the United States experienced  the single worst terrorist attack in human history , where four American planes were hijacked and flown into American buildings, killing nearly 3,000 people. Viewers around the world watched the news as five stories of the Pentagon fell and the World Trade Center buildings collapsed entirely. Later that evening, President George W. Bush addressed the nation with a brief but powerful message that chose to focus not on fear, but on America’s strength in unity.

Notable Quote:

“These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.”

15. Obama’s “More Perfect Union” Speech

Date:  March 18, 2008

Context:  While campaigning for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama came under fire for his relationship with pastor Jeremiah Wright, who had been heard to denounce the United States and accuse the government of racial crimes. To officially address the relationship and condemn Wright’s inflammatory remarks, Obama crafted a speech that discussed the history of racial inequality in America as well as the dissonance between that history and America’s ideals of human liberty. Importantly, however, he also highlighted the necessity for a unified American people to effectively combat those issues, rather than more racial division.

Notable Quote:  “[T]he remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country—a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America ….

“[These] comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems—two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all ….

“The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through—a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.”

Read about Barack Obama’s presidency in this blog post.

About the U.S. Presidential Library

As the head of state and government of the United States of America, the president is one of the most influential and noteworthy political figures in the world. The role that each American president has played reflects the evolution of the United States’ government, society, and standing on the world stage.

Research the impact of each president with HeinOnline’s  U.S. Presidential Library , a database of nearly 2,000 titles and more than a million pages dedicated to presidential documents. The database includes messages and papers of the presidents, daily and weekly compilations of presidential documents, public papers of the presidents, documents relating to impeachment, Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and a host of other related works.

Access the database within your subscription via the link below, or evaluate the resource by requesting an organization trial or quote today.

Tara Kibler

• Tags: u.s. presidential library , u.s. presidents

What Happens If There Is a Tie in the Electoral College?

What happens when no presidential candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College? The election goes to the House of Representatives, and things get a little messy.

Frances Perkins’ Life of Service

Frances Perkins was the first woman to serve in a presidential cabinet when she became the longest-serving Secretary of Labor in 1933. Her career changed the lives of every working American.

Primaries vs. Caucuses: How Presidential Nominees Are Chosen

Last month, Iowa held its Republican presidential caucus. A week later, New Hampshire held the first primary election of the 2024 election season. All these primaries and caucuses might have you wondering, what’s the difference?

Like what you see?

There’s plenty more where that came from! Subscribe to the HeinOnline Blog to receive posts like these right to your inbox.

By entering your email, you agree to receive great content from the HeinOnline Blog. HeinOnline also uses the information you provide to contact you about other content, products, and services we think you’ll love.

Like what you're reading? Subscribe to the blog!

• AI Content Shield
• AI KW Research
• AI Assistant
• SEO Optimizer
• AI KW Clustering
• Customer reviews
• The NLO Revolution
• Press Center
• Help Center
• Content Resources
• Facebook Group

Persuasive Presidential Speech: Expert & Effective Guide

Table of Contents

A solid presidential speech can be an effective tool to inspire and rally your supporters, but it also requires careful consideration and preparation. This article will guide you if you are wondering  how to write a persuasive presidential speech .

As president, your speeches are crucial to communicating with the people you represent. Writing a persuasive presidential address is a task that requires comprehensive planning and a strategic approach. Your words must inspire action, connect people, and shape the future, whether you’re President of the United States or a school association.

Here are a few helpful tips for crafting a well-written persuasive presidential speech.

How to Write a Persuasive Presidential Speech

When it comes to writing a presidential speech , simplicity is key. Your audience should be able to understand your message without getting lost in complex language or wordy sentences. 

The following are some guidelines to assist you in convincing your audience and effectively communicating your message:

1. Create an Outline

Create an outline of your main talking points. This will assist you in remaining focused on the issues that are most important to your audience.

2. Keep Your Sentences Short and concise.

Keep sentences related to your main message short and to the point. This will help your audience stay engaged and make it easier for them to understand your message.

3. Show Gratitude

Be grateful for your audience’s attendance and make it feel like you are speaking to them individually. This will help build a personal connection with your audience and make them more receptive to your message.

4. Be Clear About How you Will Solve any Problems You are Addressing.

Outline the problems your audience is facing and how you propose to solve them using the problem-solution structure. This will make it easier for your audience to comprehend your strategy and why you are the best person for the task.

5. Focus on the positives

If you are writing a campaign speech, let your speech focus on the positive aspects of your campaign and avoid insults or negativity. This will help you maintain a positive image and avoid alienating your audience.

6. Use repetitive phrases

To emphasize important concepts, use recurring words and phrases throughout the speech. Your message will become more effective due to the audience’s ability to remember it.

7. End with a call to action

Motivate the audience to take action and thank them for listening to your speech. This will help you end on a high note and inspire your audience to support your campaign.

8. Take a cue from great speakers.

Take inspiration from successful public speakers and politicians. Observing the techniques and strategies used by successful leaders can help you craft a more effective speech.

How to Start a Presidential Speech

The introduction of a presidential speech is crucial in setting the tone and capturing the audience’s attention . Here are some tips for starting your speech effectively:

• Begin with a greeting and acknowledge any important individuals in the audience. This will help you establish a personal connection with your audience and show respect for their presence.
• Briefly explain the reason for your speech and consider using humor to break the ice, if appropriate. This act will help you connect with your audience and increase their receptivity to your message.

Planning Your Speech

Effective planning is key to delivering a strong presidential speech. When preparing your speech, take into account the following steps:

1. Choose a few key issues to address .

These should be problems that are important to your audience and that you are passionate about solving.

2. Highlight your involvement in your community. 

Show your audience that you are passionate about the community and active in it. Clubs, student government, events you’ve attended or helped plan, and volunteer work you’re working on make your audience more interested.

3. Emphasize your leadership skills

Find and use an approach that emphasizes your leadership skills and decision-making abilities. Use examples from your experience to demonstrate your ability to lead and make informed decisions. This will help your audience see that you have the skills and qualities necessary to be a successful leader.

4. Use Simple and Clear Transitions

Use simple transitions to help the audience follow along with your speech and comprehend its organization and main points. Link your point in simple ways. This will make it easier for your audience to pay attention and follow along with your speech.

5. Use Powerful Language and Imagery

Use powerful language and imagery to make an emotional connection with the audience. Using descriptive language and evocative imagery can help your audience feel more connected to your message and more invested in your campaign.

6. Practice and seek feedback

Practice your speech and consider seeking feedback from friends or advisors. By practicing your speech, you can improve your delivery and fine-tune your message. Seeking feedback from others can also help you identify areas for improvement and make your speech more effective.

Delivering Your Speech

Once you have composed and planned your speech, it’s time to focus on delivering it effectively. These tips will help you deliver a confident and compelling presidential speech:

• Use confident body language and facial expressions . By standing tall, making eye contact, and using confident gestures, you can project confidence and credibility to your audience.
• Use a clear and strong speaking voice . Practice speaking slowly and clearly to help your audience understand your message and stay engaged.
• Use appropriate pauses and emphasis. Use pauses to impact your message. By varying your pace and emphasizing key points, you can keep your audience’s attention and make your message more powerful.
• Use props or visual aids to help illustrate your points.  By using props or visual aids, you can help your audience better understand your message and make it more memorable.
• Engage with your Audience.  By asking questions, making jokes, and interacting with your audience, you can build a personal connection and make your speech more engaging.
• Show Passion . Show your passion for the issues you are addressing. This will help your audience see that you are committed to making a difference and care about their concerns.

Presidential Campaign Speech Example

My fellow Americans, I am Adam Brown, and today I stand before you as a candidate for the esteemed position of school president. I understand that some of you may have concerns about my qualifications. I am the youngest student ever to run for this office. However, I assure you that I can lead our student body to new heights of success and achievement.

I possess many qualities that make me uniquely suited to this role. First and foremost, I am a compassionate and inclusive leader. I’m always willing to listen to the voices and perspectives of my peers before making any decisions. I’m also a hardworking and persistent individual with a track record of successfully completing any task I set my mind to.

I am an active and engaged member of our school community, always seeking ways to get involved and make a lasting impact. I bring a fresh perspective and new ideas, having come from another school and ready to bring fresh air to our own.

If you elect me as your school president, I promise to work tirelessly on behalf of our student body. I will always put your needs and interests first. I will never let you down and will always strive to be the best leader I can be. Thank you for considering me for this vital role.

As a president or aspiring president, your speeches are important for inspiring and mobilizing people to take action. With these tips on  how to write a persuasive presidential speech , you can effectively communicate your message and convince your audience.

If you’re running for school president or leading a country, these tips can help you deliver a compelling speech.

Abir Ghenaiet

Abir is a data analyst and researcher. Among her interests are artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing. As a humanitarian and educator, she actively supports women in tech and promotes diversity.

Explore All Write A Speech Articles

How to write a great welcome speech.

Writing an effective welcome speech is a form of art. It requires a delicate balance of knowledge, wit, charm, and…

• Write A Speech

Effective Guide: How to Write a Salutatorian Speech

Writing an effective salutatorian speech is a challenging yet rewarding experience. It takes creativity, dedication, and plenty of practice to…

Key Guide: How to Write a Great Memorial Speech

Writing a memorable memorial speech that captures the life and legacy of your loved one can be an incredibly daunting…

Better Guide: How to Write a Funny Valedictorian Speech

Writing a funny valedictorian speech can be both challenging and rewarding. For those who have the knowledge, experience, and wit…

Writing A Unique & Memorable Wedding Ceremony Speech

People around you, whether family, friends, or acquaintances, will get married someday. And you might be tasked with delivering the…

Unleashing Success: Motivational Speech to Inspire Students

Success is a journey, not a destination. It is a continuous process of striving, learning, and growing–something every student should…

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

How To Write A Presidential Speech

Katie Clower

The Importance of a Presidential Speech

Presidential speeches have been a prevalent and important part of our country’s society and culture since Washington’s inauguration in April of 1789 in which the first inaugural address, and presidential speech in general, was delivered. Since then, we as a country have beared witness to countless presidential and political speeches. Some have been moving, some inspirational and motivating, some heartbreaking and tear-jerking. Others have made us cringe out of anger, fear, or disappointment. Some have simply fallen flat, having been described as boring or awkward or unsettling.

Many presidential speeches are remembered and regarded to this day, despite how many decades or centuries ago they were delivered. Often, we remember and reflect on those which were the most special and important. But, in some cases the horribly written or delivered ones stick out in our minds, too. This writing guide is designed, in part, for those presidential or politician candidates and hopefuls to use as a tool to ensure their own speeches will be remembered and reflected on for years to come, for their positive messages and audience responses, not the opposite.

If you are not or do not plan to be a politician or president, do not stop reading! This guide is also written with the average person, even one with little to no political ties or aspirations, in mind. Public speech is a large aspect and topic of discussion in our society, one that has become critical to the presidential process. As such, many of us may be fascinated by and curious about the process of constructing and delivering a successful presidential speech. This guide will convey all of this information via data and analyses of previous both renowned and failed presidential speeches, deductions of what it was that made them so great or so catastrophic, syntheses of expert research and findings on the topic, and more. It does so in a casual, easy-to-follow tone, further making it a read for all.

Another reason this guide is applicable to everyone is because the speech-making tips and techniques shared throughout the text are true for not just political speech, but any form. Everyone has to deliver pitches, speeches, or presentations at some point in their lives or careers. The conclusion section emphasizes how the information and advice shared in this guide can apply to and help with all other forms of speech writing and delivering. With all of this in mind, this guide is meant for truly anyone who wants to take the time to read and be informed.

Goals of the Speech

Presidential speeches have become increasingly important over time as a means to connect with and appeal to the people in order to articulate and drive forward presidential goals, deliver or reflect on tragic or positive news, and more. As Teten put it in his study, “speeches are the core of the modern presidency” (334). He finds that while “in the past, speechmaking, as well as public appeal in the content of speeches, was not only infrequent but discouraged due to precedent and technology,” today it is one of the most important and most frequently utilized presidential tools (Teten, 334). Allison Mcnearney states that “even in an age of Twitter, the formal, spoken word from the White House carries great weight and can move, anger or inspire at home and around the world.” These findings make perfecting this method of communication with the people even more crucial to master. One part of doing so requires keeping in mind what the main, general goals of these speeches are.

Connection to Audience

While presidents and politicians deliver many different types of speeches which often have contrasting tones and messages depending on the occasion, there is always an exigence for politicians to make efforts to connect with their audience. This in turn results in a more positive audience perception and reaction to both the president and his speech. Later in the guide, specific rhetorical and linguistic strategies and moves will be discussed which have proven effective in fostering a connection with audience members through speech.

This overall notion of establishing connection works to break down barriers and make the audience feel more comfortable with and trusting of the speech giver. McNearney points to FDR as a president who successfully connected with the people, largely, she claims, through his fireside chats. The fireside chats exemplified a president making use of the media for the first time “to present a very carefully crafted message that was unfiltered and unchallenged by the press” (McNearney). Today, we often see our presidents use Twitter as a media avenue to connect and present their “unfiltered” version of a policy or goal.

Lasting Message

Another central and overarching goal presidents and politicians should keep in mind when writing and delivering a speech is to make it lasting and memorable. It is challenging to predict what exactly will resonate with people in a way that makes a speech long remembered. Many of the various rhetorical and linguistic techniques outlined in section III have helped former presidents deliver speeches that have become known as some of “the greats.”

Sometimes it is a matter of taking risks with a speech. Martin Luther King and Barack Obama are among some of the most powerful speech-givers our country has seen. Both men took risks in many of their speeches. Mcnearney points to Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech as being “risky” in its focus and discussion on racial tensions in the country, an often avoided or untouched conversation. But, the speech was well-received and well-remembered, proving this risk was worth it.

What to Do: Rhetorical and Linguistic Moves

A conjunction of previous findings from various scholars and my own research make up this section to portray the effective rhetorical and linguistic strategies that have been employed in successful presidential speech.

Emotive Language

In section II one of the central goals discussed in a presidential speech is to appeal to one’s audience . An effective way to do so is through emotive language and general emotional appeal. In their study, Erisen et al. note the value of “strik[ing] an emotional chord with the public” as a means to gain public support, increase public awareness, and overall aid presidents in pursuing their political agendas (469). They work to prove the effectiveness of this strategy through an analysis of an Obama speech, delivered during a time of growing economic crisis in the country.

Erisen et al. identify Obama’s implementation of both emotional and optimistic tones as rhetorical moves to connect with and appeal to his audience of constituents. The success of his use of emotionally-related rhetorical strategies are evident findings that came out of a survey that “reported that 68% of speech-watchers had a ‘positive reaction’ and that 85% felt ‘more optimistic’ about the direction the country was heading” (Erisen et al., 470). Stewart et al. also find that “more emotionally evocative messages… lead to higher levels of affective response by viewers” (125). This clear data indicates the power connecting with an audience through emotion can have on their response and future outlook.

Optimistic Tone

Along with Obama’s “optimistic tone” described above, others have employed what has been described as both hopeful and reassuring tones as rhetorical moves to appeal to an audience. Two of the ten “most important modern presidential speeches,” as selected by the nonpartisan affiliated scholars of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, are JFK’s address on the space effort and FDR’s first inaugural address (McNearney). JFK’s address was successful and well-received because of the hopeful tone he employs when discussing the goal to land a man on the moon. He gave the people an optimistic perspective on this lofty goal, making “Americans feel like there was nothing we couldn’t do” (McNearney). In his inaugural address, Roosevelt too pairs bold claims with optimism and reassurance to his audience.

Inclusive Language

Another found strategy utilized by presidents to appeal to their audience through speech is the use of inclusive language. In Teten’s study, he looks at the use of the words “we” and “our”, specifically, in presidential State of the Union Addressesses over time. His findings revealed a steady increase in these words within the speeches over time. The usage of these “public address and inclusion words” create an appeal with presidents’ audiences because they help presidents in creating “an imagined community in which the president and his listeners coexist on a level plane (Teten, 339-342). These findings illustrate the importance of not presenting oneself as an omnipotent power and leader, but rather a normal citizen of the country like all of those watching. Identifying oneself with the audience this way breaks down any barriers present.

Persuasive Language

Persuasion is another often-used rhetorical strategy, especially during presidential campaigns. In their study about “language intensity,” Clementson et al. look at the use of “persuasive language” as a strategy presidential candidates employ during their campaigns. They assert that “candidates seem to vary their language as they try to persuade audiences to perceive them favorably” (Clementson et al., 592). In referring to this persuasive rhetorical strategy, they utilize the term “problem-solution structure” as one which is often well-received by an audience. People appreciate hearing exactly how a president or presidential candidate plans to fix a problem at hand.

What Not to Do

  As stated earlier, while there are many speeches that are excellently written and delivered, there, too, are many speeches that flop. Alexander Meddings wrote an article which spotlights a number of political speeches which he deems some of the “worst” in modern history. In comparing what makes a good versus a bad speech he asserts that “a bad speech must, by definition, be flat, garbled and publicly damaging either for the speaker or for the cause they’re seeking to promote” (Meddings). In looking at some of the characteristics that make up some of the “worst” speeches, this section will highlight what not to do in the process of working to compose and deliver a successful speech.

The research demonstrates that length of speech actually proves very important. In Teten’s study, in addition to looking at inclusive language over time in presidential State of the Union Addresses, he also graphically measured the length, specifically number of words, of the addresses across time. His results proved interesting. There was a rise in length of these speeches from the first one delivered to those delivered in the early 1900s and then there was a sudden and far drop. There was a movement around the time of the drop to make speeches more concise, and it is clear, since they have remained much shorter as time has gone on, this choice was well-received.

Meddings alludes to this in his piece, describing both William Henry Harrison’s presidential inaugural address and Andrew Johnson’s vice-presidential inaugural address as some of the worst speeches, largely because of how dragged out they were. A very important aspect of speech-giving is capturing the audience’s attention, and this cannot be accomplished through a lengthy, uninteresting oration.

Lying And/or Contradiction

Though it should be fairly obvious that one should not lie in a speech, for the consequences will be great, there have been a number of presidents and politicians who have done so. Regan, Clinton, and Trump are all among the presidents and politicians who have made false statements or promises within speeches. Though it is understandable that a politician would want to speak towards what he or she knows will resonate and appeal to the audience, doing so in a false or manipulative way is not commendable and will lead to much greater backlash than just being honest.

Word Choice

Some politicians have been caught lying in speeches when trying to cover up a controversy or scandal. Though one should try to avoid any sort of controversy, a president or person in power has to expect to have to talk on some difficult or delicate topics. This is where careful word choice becomes vital. Often the way to ensure a speech is written eloquently, carefully, and inoffensively is through various rounds of editing from a number of different eyes.

Applications to All Forms of Speech-Giving

This guide should prove helpful for not only those looking to run for office, but for everyone. The various strategies and techniques given within this guide are, for the most part, broad enough that they can be applied to any form of speech-giving or presenting. We will all have to give a speech, a toast, a presentation, and countless other forms of written or oral works in our lives. Refer to this guide when doing so.

In terms of political or presidential speech specifically, though, in a sense there is not a clear formula for how to write and deliver them. In studies looking at various different successful presidential speeches, orators, and speechwriters, it is clear they all have their own unique style and form that works for them. But, the tips provided in this guide will certainly work to help to create a proficient and successful political speech writer and orator.

Works Cited

Clementson, David E., Paola Pascual-Ferr, and Michael J. Beatty. “When does a Presidential Candidate seem Presidential and Trustworthy? Campaign Messages through the Lens of Language Expectancy Theory.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 46.3 (2016): 592-617.  ProQuest. Web. 10 Dec. 2019.

Erisen, Cengiz, and José D. Villalotbos. “Exploring the Invocation of Emotion in Presidential Speeches.” Contemporary Politics , vol. 20, no. 4, 2014, pp. 469–488., doi:10.1080/13569775.2014.968472.

McNearney, Allison. “10 Modern Presidential Speeches Every American Should Know.”

History.com , A&E Television Networks, 16 Feb. 2018, www.history.com/news/10-modern-presidential-speeches-every-american-should-know.

Meddings, Alexander. “The 8 Worst Speeches in Modern Political History.”

HistoryCollection.co , 9 Nov. 2018, historycollection.co/8-worst-speeches-modern-political-history/7/.

Stewart, Patrick A., Bridget M. Waller, and James N. Schubert. “Presidential Speechmaking

Style: Emotional Response to Micro-Expressions of Facial Affect.” Motivation and Emotion 33.2 (2009): 125-35. ProQuest. Web. 1 Oct. 2019.

Teten, Ryan. “Evolution of the Modern Rhetorical Presidency: Presidential Presentation and

Development of the State of the Union Address.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 33.2 (2003): 333-46. ProQuest. Web. 30 Sep. 2019.

Writing Guides for (Almost) Every Occasion Copyright © 2020 by Katie Clower is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Vote for Me! Developing, Writing, and Evaluating Persuasive Speeches

• Resources & Preparation
• Instructional Plan
• Related Resources

To deliver an effective persuasive speech, students must formulate logical arguments and back them up with examples. In this lesson, students will study political campaign speeches to explore the characteristics of effective persuasive speechwriting and oral argument. While using an online tutorial and looking at examples, students learn what makes a strong speech. A second online tool helps them learn how to formulate a persuasive argument. Students then apply this information in two ways: by writing their own speeches and evaluating others'.

Featured Resources

ReadWriteThink Persuasion Map : Use this interactive tool for any lesson in which students need to create a piece of persuasive writing.

From Theory to Practice

• Persuasive writing can take many forms including essays, letters to the editor, classified advertisements, and speeches.
• In political speeches, writers use precision to make the speech more easily understood.
• In a short persuasive speech, it's important to have an introduction that states the position of the speech clearly; this is followed by at least three pieces of evidence to support the position.
• Students should examine the various ways persuasion is used in everyday life before they begin writing their own persuasive pieces.
• Persuasive writing is easily incorporated into content areas such as science and social studies.

Common Core Standards

This resource has been aligned to the Common Core State Standards for states in which they have been adopted. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, CCSS alignments are forthcoming.

State Standards

This lesson has been aligned to standards in the following states. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, standard alignments are not currently available for that state.

NCTE/IRA National Standards for the English Language Arts

• 4. Students adjust their use of spoken, written, and visual language (e.g., conventions, style, vocabulary) to communicate effectively with a variety of audiences and for different purposes.
• 5. Students employ a wide range of strategies as they write and use different writing process elements appropriately to communicate with different audiences for a variety of purposes.
• 8. Students use a variety of technological and information resources (e.g., libraries, databases, computer networks, video) to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge.
• 11. Students participate as knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities.
• 12. Students use spoken, written, and visual language to accomplish their own purposes (e.g., for learning, enjoyment, persuasion, and the exchange of information).

Materials and Technology

• Computers with Internet access
• LCD projector and screen
• Persuasive Speech Checklist
• Persuasive Speech Rubric

Preparation

Student objectives.

Students will

• Develop critical thinking skills by learning about the characteristics of an effective speech, both how it is written and how it is delivered, and then applying these criteria to sample speeches
• Formulate an argument, including the use of examples to support a thesis, using an online tool that helps them organize their ideas
• Develop skills in persuasive writing and oral delivery by writing a one-minute persuasive speech and presenting it to a small group of their peers
• Interpret and evaluate persuasive arguments using a rubric to assess their peers' speeches

Session 1: The Characteristics of a Strong Speech

Session 2: persuasive writing, session 3: effective speech delivery, session 4 convincing their classmates.

• Explore the "Record It" section on the Speechwriting website. Listen to the student speeches and discuss and evaluate them using the Persuasive Speech Rubric . You can also have students record their speeches for the site.
• View and discuss some actual campaign speeches and compare them to the students' speeches.

Student Assessment / Reflections

• Observe student participation in the initial discussions about what constitutes an effective speech. Collect the Persuasive Speech Rubrics from the first session's discussion and review them to make sure students are correctly applying the criteria to the sample speech. If you observe some consistent misconceptions, address these at the beginning of Session 2.
• Review each student's Persuasion Map and speech and offer him or her feedback using the Persuasive Speech Rubric.
• Observe students both when they are practicing their speeches and while they are working in their groups. Review the completed Persuasive Speech Rubrics to determine that they understand how to apply the criteria to evaluate a persuasive speech.
• Strategy Guides
• Lesson Plans
• Calendar Activities
• Student Interactives

Through a classroom game and resource handouts, students learn about the techniques used in persuasive oral arguments and apply them to independent persuasive writing activities.

Election Day is held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

The Persuasion Map is an interactive graphic organizer that enables students to map out their arguments for a persuasive essay or debate.

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Supplements
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Submit?
• About Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
• About the European Association for Digital Humanities
• About the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1 introduction, 2 related work, 3 electoral corpus, 4 evaluation of stylistic characteristics of the candidates, 5 evaluation of topical characteristics of the candidates, 6 conclusion, acknowledgments.

• < Previous

Analysis of the style and the rhetoric of the 2016 US presidential primaries

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Jacques Savoy, Analysis of the style and the rhetoric of the 2016 US presidential primaries, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities , Volume 33, Issue 1, April 2018, Pages 143–159, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqx007

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This present article examines the verbal style and rhetoric of the candidates of the 2016 US presidential primary elections. To achieve this objective, this study analyzes the oral communication forms used by the candidates during the TV debates. When considering the most frequent lemmas, the candidates can be split into two groups, one using more frequently the pronoun ‘I’, and the second favoring more the ‘we’ (which corresponds to candidates leaving the presidential run sooner). According to several overall stylistic indicators, candidate Trump clearly adopted a simple and direct communication style, avoiding complex formulation and vocabulary. From a topical perspective, our analysis generates a map showing the affinities between candidates. This investigation results in the presence of three distinct groups of candidates, the first one with the Democrats (Clinton, O’Malley, and Sanders), the second with three Republicans (Bush, Cruz, Rubio), and the last with the duo Trump and Kasich, with, at a small distance, Paul. The over-used terms and typical sentences associated with each candidate reveal their specific topics such as ‘simple flat tax’ for Cruz, ‘balanced budget’ for Kasich, negativity with Trump, or critiques against large corporations and Wall Street for Sanders.

The 2016 US presidential election was characterized by two figures, both unloved by the majority of Americans ( Yourish, 2016 ). Donald Trump seemed sincere, authentic, saying what he thinks, putting aside political correctness. For him, all appearances and comments on the media were an opportunity for self-promotion. He believed that the repetition of a simple message, even if false ( Millbank, 2016 ), is enough to persuade the citizens that it is true. His image was centered around his verbosity, egocentricity, and pomposity. Just after the announcement of his candidacy for President (16 June 2015), his candidacy was mainly viewed as marginal, without pertinent interest, and without a real future. But Trump was able to beat all his opponents and won the nomination for the Republican party (21 July 2016).

Nominated by the Democrats (28 July 2016), Hillary Clinton always appeared as a cold woman, a member of the political establishment rejected by many people. She did not like the press and the media and, in return, they do not like her much either. This aspect could be related to her first years at the White House as an overqualified First Lady who wanted to play a principal role in politics (e.g. health care reform in 1993). For some people, she was even a crook and a liar, or, at least, dishonest ( Sainato, 2016 ). When her campaign starts (14 April 2015), everything seemed simple and the road to the nomination seems without any real problem. The presence of Bernie Sanders occupying a position more on the left demonstrates that the Democratic primaries were more difficult than expected. Finally, her email case and FBI investigations were a real concern for her image in the public, especially during the general election campaign.

Even if Hillary’s candidature appeared more natural, she needed to convince the Democrats and their sympathizers that she was the right person who can win the general election. Inside the Republican party, the outcome of the fight was more uncertain, in part by the larger number of candidates (seventeen vs. six), and the leading position occupied by Jeb Bush in the beginning of the primaries. Despite the now-known election outcome, the candidates’ use of language during the primary season raises some pertinent research questions. How were the respective nominees able to win the primaries according to their speeches? Does the analysis of TV debates make it possible to detect their style and rhetoric? Can one discover the rhetorical features that can explain a Trump or Clinton success? Can one measure the stylistic distance between the candidates in both parties?

To answer these questions, the current study will focus on the US primaries’ TV debates. Here, rhetoric is defined as the art of effective and persuasive speaking, the way to motivate an audience, while language style is presented as pervasive and frequent forms used by an author for mainly esthetical value ( Biber and Conrad, 2009 ). The analysis will use the oral communication form, a more direct and spontaneous way of interacting, reflecting more closely the personal style of each candidate. The style of the written messages (evident in prepared statements by the candidates) differs from the oral dialogue ( Biber et al. , 2002 ). Moreover, the statements are certainly authored, at least in part, by a team of speechwriters. Therefore, the two forms of communication must be analyzed separately.

The rest of this article is organized as follows. The next section presents some related research in computer-based analysis of political speeches. The third section presents briefly some statistics about our corpus. The fourth describes and applies different measurements and methods to define and compare the rhetoric and style of the different candidates. The fifth section visualizes the relative position of each candidate in stylistic and topical spaces. A conclusion draws the main findings of this study.

Political texts have been the subject of various studies discussing different aspects of them. Focusing on governmental speeches written in French, Labbé and Monière (2003 ; 2008a ) have created a set of governmental corpora such as the ‘Speeches from the Throne’ (Canada and Quebec), a corpus of the general policy statements of French governments ( Labbé and Monière, 2003 ; 2008a ) as well as a collection of press releases covering the French presidential campaign of 2012 ( Labbé and Monière, 2013 ; Arnold and Labbé, 2015 ). Similar research has been conducted with other languages, such as Italian ( Pauli and Tuzzi, 2009 ). From these analyses, one can observe, for example, that governmental institutions tend to smooth out the differences between political parties when exercising command. Moreover, the temporal period of the documents constitutes an important factor explaining the variations between presidents or prime ministers. The presence of a strong leader is usually accompanied with a real change in the style and vocabulary of governmental speeches ( Labbé and Monière, 2003 ; Savoy, 2015c ).

Focusing on the USA, recent studies confirm these findings as, for example, using the ‘State of the Union’ ( Savoy, 2015a ) or inaugural addresses ( Kubát and Cech, 2016 ). Beside time frame, exceptional events (e.g. worldwide war, deep economic depression) may change noticeably the style. These results present also the stylistic evolution over more than two centuries and can be compared to those achieved using traditional methods as, for example, by Lim (2002) .

Differentiations between political parties can however be observed as, for example, studies based on tweets ( Sylwester and Purver, 2015 ). Such differences tend to be correlated with psychological factors. For example, positive emotion words occur more frequently in Democrats’ tweets than in Republican ones, as well as swear expressions, or first singular person pronouns (e.g. I, me). In a related study using a training corpus, Laver et al. (2003) describe a methodology to extract political positions from texts. In a similar vein, Yu (2008) demonstrates that machine learning methods (e.g. SVM and naïve Bayes) can be trained to classify congressional speeches according to political parties. Better performance levels can be achieved when the training examples are extracted from the same time period as the test set. In another study, Yu (2013) reveals that (political) feminine figures tend to use emotional words more frequently and employ more personal pronouns than men. A more general overview of using different computer-based strategy to detect and extract topical information from political texts can be found in ( Grimmer and Stewart, 2013 ).

The web-based communication (e.g. tweets, blogs, chats) was used by O’Connor et al. (2010) to estimate the popularity of the Obama administration. This study found a positive correlation between the presidential approval polls and positive tweets containing the hashtag #obama. Such a selection strategy produces a low recall because many tweets about Obama’s administration are not considered). As a tweet is rather short (in mean eleven words), the sentiment estimation is simply the count of the number of positive and negative words appearing in the OpinionFinder dictionary ( Wilson et al. , 2005 ).

Also grounded on several dictionaries (or categories), Young and Soroka (2012) describe how one can detect and measure sentiments appearing in political texts. The suggested approach is rather similar to O’Connor et al. ’s work (2010), counting the frequency of occurrence of words appearing in a dictionary of positive or negative emotion words. Using also some lists of words, Hart (1984) has designed and implemented a political text analyzer called Diction . Based on US presidential speeches, that study presents the rhetorical and stylistic differences between the US presidents from Truman to Reagan, while a more recent book ( Hart et al. , 2013 ) exposes the stylistic variations from G. W. Bush to Obama. Using the Diction system, Bligh et al. (2010) analyze the rhetoric of H. Clinton during the 2008 presidential election. Hillary appears more feminine than the other candidates, using more ‘I’ than ‘we’, and showing a higher frequency in the category ‘Human interest’ (e.g. family, man, person, etc.).

As another example, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; Tausczik and Pennebaker, 2010 ) regroups different categories used to evaluate the author’s psychological status (e.g. feminine, emotion, leadership), as well as her/his style (e.g. grounded on personal pronouns ( Pennebaker, 2011 )). The underlying hypothesis is to assume that the words serve as guides to the way the author thinks, acts, or feels. In LIWC, the generation of the word lists was done based on the judgments of three experts instead of simply concatenating various existing lists. Using the LIWC system, Slatcher et al. (2007) were able to determine the personalities of different political candidates (US presidential election in 2004). They defined the psychological portrait both on single measurements (e.g. the relative frequency of different pronouns, positive emotions) and using a set of composite indices reflecting the cognitive complexity, presidentially, or honesty of each candidate. These personality measurements were in agreement with different opinion polls. For example, G. W. Bush used more frequently the pronoun ‘I’, positive emotion words (e.g. happy, truly, win), and the future tense. The public perceived J. Kerry as a kind of depressed person, serious, somber, and cold, adopting more frequently negative emotion expressions (e.g. sad, worthless, cut, lost) and physical words (e.g. head, ache, sleep).

To conclude briefly, previous studies have mainly analyzed governmental speeches, and less frequently the electoral speeches ( Boller, 2004 ) or related messages (e.g. such as press releases; Labbé and Monière, 2013 ). A few studies focus on the legislative level (e.g. the Congress) and these studies are mainly grounded on the written form. More recently, the web-based communication channels have been studied, but in this perspective, those studies are using more often tweets and less frequently blogs, or audio and video media (e.g. YouTube). The present study is focusing on two less explored aspects, namely, the electoral campaign on the one hand, and on the other, the oral form.

To analyze the rhetoric and style adopted by the candidates during the primaries of the 2016 US primary election, the transcripts of the TV debates have been downloaded from the Internet (mainly from the Web site www.presidency.ucsb.edu ). For the Republican candidates (Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump), twelve TV debates were organized, from the 1st one held on 6 August 2015 with ten candidates, to the last one organized on 10 March 2016 with four candidates. For the Democrats (Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, and Bernie Sanders), one can count nine TV debates held from 13 October 2015 (with five candidates) to 9 March 2016 (with two candidates).

Due to space limitations, not all possible candidates have been retained. Some persons never appear in a TV debate (e.g. Pataki (R), Jindal (R), Lessig (D)) or just appear in one (e.g. Webb (D)) or two debates (e.g. Walker (R)) while others have been ignored because they have played a minor role during the electoral campaign (e.g. Carson (R) or Christie (R)).

From a stylistic point of view, this corpus is homogenous, corresponding to an oral communication form, extracted from a short period of time, and with the same main objectives (convincing the people, answering questions, presenting their ideas and solutions). Several factors influencing the style are therefore fixed. The remaining variations can be largely explained by the speaker.

Even if the topics are not directly and fully controlled by the candidates, the debate format corresponds to a more spontaneous form of communication, able to reveal more closely the real person behind her/his projected image. Of course, one can raise the question of the speaker’s spontaneity because Donna Brazile, who worked for CNN, provided, at least once, prepared questions to Clinton before a debate. This phenomenon is assumed to be the exception rather than the norm.

One can consider that electoral speeches delivered by the candidates correspond also to an oral communication form and thus can be included in our corpus. However, as mentioned by Biber and Conrad (2009 , p. 262):

Language that has its source in writing but performed in speech does not necessarily follow the generalization [written vs. oral]. That is, a person reading a written text aloud will produce speech that has the linguistic characteristics of the written text. Similarly, written texts can be memorized and then spoken.

Some statistics about candidates’ speeches and comments

As shown in Table 1 , Paul and O’Malley correspond to the smallest values, both being present for a relatively short period of time during this electoral campaign. Clinton appears with the largest number of tokens, followed by Sanders, Trump, Rubio, and Cruz.

To highlight the different styles adopted by the candidates, Biber and Conrad (2009) indicate that such a study should be based on ubiquitous and frequent forms. Thus, the analysis of the most frequent ones is certainly a good starting point, as shown in the first sub-section. The second proposes to consider four overall stylistic measurements and applies them to the different candidates while the last sub-section describes the differences in the distribution of the grammatical categories between candidates.

4.1 Most frequent lemmas

To analyze the rhetoric and style of presidential writings, the first quantitative linguistics studies focused on the word usages and their frequencies. As the English language has a relatively simple morphology, working on inflected forms (e.g. ‘we, us, ours’, or ‘wars, war’) or lemmas (dictionary entries such as ‘we’ or ‘war’ from the previous example) often lead to similar conclusions.

To define the lemma of each token, the part-of-speech (POS) tagger developed by Toutanova et al. (2003) was first applied. Given a sentence as input, this system is able to add the corresponding POS tag to each token. For example, from the sentence ‘But I also know this problem is not going away’, the POS tagger returns ‘But/ cc I/ prp also/ rb know/ vbp this/ dt problem/ nn is/ vbz not/ rb going/ vbg away/ rb ./.’. Tags may be attached to nouns ( nn , noun, singular, nns noun, plural, nnp proper noun, singular), verbs ( vb , lemma, vbg gerund or present participle, vbp non-3rd-person singular present, vbz 3rd-person singular present), adjectives ( jj , jjr adjective in comparative form), personal pronouns ( prp ), prepositions ( in ), and adverbs ( rb ). These morphological tags ( Marcus et al. , 1993 ) correspond mainly to those used in the Brown corpus ( Francis and Kucera, 1982 ). With this information one can derive the lemma by removing the plural form of nouns (e.g. jobs/ nns → job/ nn ) or by substituting inflectional suffixes of verbs (e.g. detects/ vbz → detect/ vb ).

Our first analysis considers the most frequent lemmas occurring in the oral interventions of the candidates during the TV debates of the primaries. Unsurprisingly, the article ‘the’ and the verb ‘be’ (lemma of the word types am, is, are, was, etc.) appear regularly in the first two ranks. Looking at the most frequent lemmas in the Brown corpus ( Francis and Kucera, 1982 ), the first two are the same, but after them the order changes. In the Brown corpus, the top ten most frequent lemmas are as follows: the, be, of, and, to, a, in, he, have, it.

The top ten most frequent lemmas according to TV debates

Note. The personal pronouns are depicted in bold.

In this table, one can see another interesting fact related to the frequencies of the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘I’. Former governors tend to use more frequently the ‘we’ than the ‘I’ (e.g. Bush, Kasich) with O’Malley having a very distinctive style in this point of view. Usually Senators (e.g. Cruz, Paul, Clinton, Sanders) tend to prefer using the pronoun ‘I’, at least during an electoral campaign. The candidates who stayed longer in this campaign have a clear preference for the ‘I’ over the ‘we’. The pronoun ‘we’ stays ambiguous (Who is behind the ‘we’? Myself and the future government? Me and the people? Me and the workers? Me and the Congress?). Finally, the champion in the usage of ‘I’ is Trump who clearly has adopted a distinct style in the campaign, putting the light more on his ego.

4.2 Global stylistic measurements

To define an overall measurement of the style, various studies have proposed different measures. As a first indicator, one can consider the mean sentence length (MSL) reflecting a syntactical choice. The sentence boundaries are defined by the POS tagger ( Toutanova et al. , 2003 ) and correspond to ‘strong’ punctuation symbols (namely, periods, question, and exclamation marks). Usually, a longer sentence is more complex to understand, especially in the oral communication form. Using the ‘State of the Union’ addresses given by the Founding Fathers, this average value is 39.6 (with Madison depicting the highest MSL with 44.8 tokens/sentence). With Obama, the MSL decreases to 18.5 tokens/sentence. These examples indicate clearly that the style is changing over time. Currently, the preference goes to a shorter formulation, simpler to understand for the audience.

Four global stylistic measurements according to TV debates

Note. Extreme values are depicted in bold.

A relatively high LD percentage indicates a more complex text, containing more information. Using the transcripts of the TV debates, the LD values vary from 36.6% (Trump) to 44.6% (Cruz). Trump’s style appears, here too, as distinct from the others, providing his answers and comments around functional words. Cruz adopts an opposite style, focusing more on topical forms and expressions.

As an additional global stylistic measurement, the frequency of big words (composed of six letters or more, and denoted BW) can be analyzed ( Tausczik and Pennebaker, 2010 ). A text or a dialogue with a high percentage of BW tends to be more complex to understand. This fact is confirmed by recent studies:

‘One finding of cognitive science is that words have the most powerful effect on our minds when they are simple. The technical term is basic level. Basic-level words tend to be short. … Basic-level words are easily remembered; those messages will be best recalled that use basic-level language.’ ( Lakoff and Wehling, 2012 , p. 41)

This rhetoric problem was recognized by previous US president such as President Johnson who told his speechwriters: ‘I want four-letter words, and I want four sentences to the paragraph.’ ( Hart, 1984 ). Table 3 indicates that the percentage of BW varies from 18.3% (Trump) to 26.4% (Cruz, and Sanders). Grounded on the MSL, LD, and BW indicators, one can see that Trump is adopting a more direct communication style, selecting simple words and producing short sentences. Senators Cruz or O’Malley have a more sophisticated communication style, employing longer sentences and a more complex lexicon.

The Type-Token Ratio (TTR) or the relationship between the vocabulary size and the number of word types ( Baayen, 2008 ) corresponds to our last global stylistic measure. High values indicate the presence of a rich vocabulary showing that the underlying text exposes many different topics or that the author tends to present a theme from several angles with different formulations. To compute this value, one can divide the vocabulary size (number of types) by the text length (number of tokens). This estimator has the drawback of being instable, tending to decrease with text length ( Baayen, 2008 ). To avoid this problem, a better computation is provided in ( Covington and McFall, 2010 ) or ( Popescu, 2009 ), suggesting taking the moving average of TTR. This computation technique has been adopted.

From data depicted in Table 3 , one can see that the TTR value reaches a minimum of 29.7 (Trump) to a maximum of 37.9 (O’Malley). This value indicates that Trump prefers to reuse the same words and expressions, repeating his main ideas and convictions. On the other hand, O’Malley or Cruz (TTR: 37.3) have opted for a larger coverage requiring a larger number of distinct words and phrases. It should be noted that, regarding the four indices, Clinton is closer to O’Malley or Cruz than to Trump.

4.3 POS distribution

POS distribution according to TV debates

Note. The maximum value per grammatical category is shown in bold, and the minimum in italics.

Data depicted in Table 4 indicate that O’Malley is the candidate choosing most frequently the noun construction (largest percentage of nouns, and adjectives). The verb phrase is used most frequently by Trump with the largest percentage of verbs and adverbs and the lowest frequencies of nous, determiners, and prepositions. The difference between these two candidates is characteristic, with O’Malley more oriented toward an explanation requiring usually more nouns while Trump turns toward the action and its high usage of verbs. Table 4 confirms that Trump owns a style very distinct than the others. Moreover, Trump is using pronouns less—except I—than the others.

To obtain an overall measure of the intensity of the action over the descriptive part of a text, Kubát and Cech (2016) suggest to compute the ratio between the proportion of verbs divided by the sum of the proportion of the verbs and adjectives. The underlying idea is to quantify the activity by verbs while the descriptiveness of a text is represented by the proportion of adjectives. The last row of Table 4 reports the values of this Q-index for all candidates. Kasich depicts the highest value leading clearly more toward action. With a similar value and following the same tendency, one can find Trump and Paul. On the other hand, O’Malley shows the smallest Q-index value indicating more a text oriented toward description. The same feature can be assigned to Sanders.

The previous section focusses mainly on stylistic features, both at the lexical and syntactical level. When looking more at the content of their utterances, one can also observe differences between the candidates. This analysis is based on the thematic concentration of a text, providing a first overview at the recurrent topical terms used by each candidate. In the second sub-section, an intertextual distance is presented and used to derive graphs representing stylistic and topical affinities between the candidates. Finally, the terms and sentences specific to each candidate will be computed and some examples will be given.

5.1 Thematic concentration

Recently, Popescu (2009) and Cech et al. (2015) have proposed an h -point to measure the thematic concentration of a text. To compute this value, the word types are ranked according to their absolute frequency, from the most frequent to the least frequent one. The h -point is defined as the point where the frequency is equal to the rank. From this h -point, one can assume that types appearing before the h th rank are function words while those occurring after correspond to lexical or topical words (the very vocabulary).

h -point and most frequently used thematic words per candidate

Note. The maximum value is shown in bold, and the minimum in italics.

According to this formulation, when all word types appearing before the h -point are functional words, the PTC value is 0. On the other hand, when all those types are lexical words, PTC reaches the maximum value of 1.0 or 100%. In Table 5 , the second row indicates the PTC values for all candidates, showing clearly that Sanders presents the highest PTC value (12.12%) while O’Malley exposes the smallest (4.26%). Sanders’ answers and remarks are clearly more focused on a few topics. With Trump and Clinton, one can find also relatively high PTC values compared to the other candidates. Both are preferring to repeat their arguments instead of introducing other subjects. On the other hand, Bush, Paul, and, to a lesser extent, Cruz are closer to O’Malley’s PTC value, being able to present alternative formulations or covering more distinct subjects.

5.2 Stylistic and topical distance between candidates

As each candidate is represented by her/his remarks in the TV debates, one can compute a distance reflecting their similarities ( Labbé and Labbé, 2006 ). A text is, however, a composite item in which one finds both the style with its lexical, syntactical, or discourse factors, and the recurrent words belonging to the topics. To distinguish between these two main components, the first map will use the stylistic aspects while the second will take into account the topical elements. Splitting the vocabulary into two distinct parts is relatively known in stylistic ( Damerau, 1975 ), authorship attribution ( Argamon and Levitan, 2005 ; Stamatatos, 2009 ), or in quantitative linguistics studies ( Tuzzi, 2010 ). The current analysis follows this principle to consider the style, on the one hand and, on the other, the content.

To reflect the style, one can consider the k top most frequent lemmas from our electoral corpus. No general theory specifies precisely the k value, but a value from 200 to 500 represents a pertinent choice justified by various studies ( Savoy, 2015b ). Taking another strategy, one can use the h -point splitting the vocabulary into two parts. As shown previously, the h -point is rather small, and thus, the words reflecting more the style (e.g. functional words) are rather limited. In the current study, the stylistic elements will be the words appearing in the functional words list (409 entries), and used previously in defining the LD measure.

Other intertextual measures have been chosen as, for example, the chi-square ( Grieve, 2007 ), the Delta ( Burrows, 2002 ), or using the Kullback-Leibler divergence ( Zhao and Zobel, 2007 ). The Labbé’s measure ( Labbé, 2007 ) has however demonstrated its effectiveness in various authorship attribution problems such as in literary works ( Labbé and Labbé, 2006 ), in historical newspaper articles ( Savoy, 2013 ), or in political speeches ( Savoy, 2015d ).

Grounded on this measure, one can compute the intertextual distance between all nine candidates. Displaying directly the 9 × 9 matrix containing these distances has a limited interest. Knowing that this matrix is symmetric and that the distance to itself is nil, we still have (81 − 9)/2 values. A better solution is to apply a clustering method (e.g. hierarchical clustering built on the complete link) to visualize the different groups of candidates according to their stylistic profiles. Recently, such distance matrices can be represented by a tree-based visualization method respecting ‘approximately’ the real distances between all nodes ( Baayen, 2008 ). This new representation has been chosen, and the result is displayed in Fig. 1 obtained using the R software ( Paradis, 2011 ; Saitou and Nei, 1987 ). Using graphical views to represent results of stylistic analysis is not new in quantitative linguistics studies. More often however, such displays correspond to scatterplots, principal component analysis views, or correspondence analysis figures ( Lebart et al. , 1998 ; Greenacre, 2017 ). Tree-based graphs are more appropriate when displaying similarities between author profiles or stylistic affinities between works ( Labbé and Labbé, 2006 ; Labbé, 2007 ).

Stylistic distance between candidates

In this figure, the distance between two candidates is indicated by the lengths of the lines connecting them. For example, starting with Bush, one can follow the branch until reaching the central point, then one can go along the lines leading to the second person (e.g. Trump or Clinton).

To generate Fig. 1 , only the functional words (409 entries) have been used to reflect the style of each candidate. Based on this perspective, the longest distance (0.251) connects Trump and O’Malley, and the second longest (0.181) links Paul to O’Malley. The third longest distance (0.180) can be found between Trump and Cruz. The two closest candidates are Bush and Rubio (0.104), while the second shortest distance (0.114) joins Clinton with Sanders. More generally, Fig. 1 depicts three main groups, one Democrat, and two Republicans. From a stylistic point of view, the Republican cluster {Bush, Cruz, Rubio} is well separated from the second Republican group {Kasich, Trump, and with a smaller additional distance Paul} as well as for the Democrats {Clinton, O’Malley, Sanders}.

To build Fig. 2 , the intertextual distance is computed according to topical words, and no word used to draw Fig. 1 is present in the elaboration of Fig. 2 . To achieve this, the computation ignored all functional words for all texts. In this figure, the longest distance (0.510) connects Paul and O’Malley, and the second longest distance (0.496) links Trump to O’Malley. The third longest distance (0.467) can be found between Cruz and O’Malley. The two closest candidates are Clinton and Sanders (0.346), while the second shortest distance (0.360) joins Trump with Kasich.

Topical distance between candidates

As in Figs 1 and 2 reveals two Republican groups with the same members as in Fig. 1 . Trump’s topics are relatively similar to those presented by Kasich and, with some distance, with those exposed by Paul. With a longer distance, one can find the team Rubio and Cruz, with Bush having some affinities with this pair. On the bottom part, one can find the Democrats, with a shorter distance between Clinton and Sanders than with O’Malley.

5.3 Most specific terms

The analysis of the most frequent terms reveals some important themes of the 2016 primary election. But each candidate wants to promote his/her own specific point of view on some issues, and must underline his differences with others. Just considering the ten most frequent words, similar sets appearing with each candidate and the difference between them lies on their ranking as shown previously. Moreover, such analysis reveals more the style than the preferred themes. For example, from data depicted in Table 2 , Trump, Clinton, and Sander prefers using ‘I’ instead of ‘we’, while Kasich, O’Malley, and Bush are using more frequently the pronoun ‘we’.

Thus, which keywords or expressions can well describe each candidate and can be used to denote his/her difference? How can one define them, and, from a statistical point of view, be sure that the proposed terms are significantly over-used by the candidate? To measure the specificity attached to a term ( Lafon, 1980 ; Muller, 1992 ), the corpus is split into two disjoint parts denoted P 0 and P 1 . For a given term t i , its absolute frequency in P 0 is given by tf i0 , and in P 1 by tf i1 . In this study, P 0 corresponds to all comments by a given candidate, while P 1 denotes all other comments and remarks. Thus, for the entire corpus, the absolute frequency of the term t i is tf i0 + tf i1 . The total number of lemmas in part P 0 (or its length) is denoted n 0 , similarly with P 1 and n 1 , and the length of the entire corpus is defined by n = n 0 + n 1.

It is assumed that, for any term t i , its distribution follows a binomial law, with parameters n 0 and p( t i ) representing the probability of the term t i being randomly selected from the entire corpus. Using the maximum likelihood principle, this probability is estimated as p( t i ) = ( tf i0 + tf i1 )/ n . Of course, other models can be used as, for example, the hypergeometric one ( Baayen, 2008 ) which could be viewed as the exact distribution. However, the binomial formulation is easier to use and gives a good approximation.

Applying this procedure, the term specificity can be computed according to the text P 0 . Those Z score values can verify whether the underlying lemma is used proportionally with roughly the same frequency in both parts (Z score value close to 0). With a positive Z score larger than a fixed threshold δ (e.g. 3), one can conclude—with less than 1% chance of error—that the term is ‘significantly over-used’ in P 0 . In other words, the text P 0 contains significantly more occurrences of the corresponding term than expected by a uniform distribution over the whole corpus. A large negative Z score (less than -δ) indicates than the corresponding term is significantly under-used in P 0 .

The top ten most specific terms per candidate

A more interesting finding is the presence of the pronoun ‘I’ in the most over-used terms by only two runners: Trump and Clinton. A candidate who wants to stay in the race must put forward him/her-self. After all the election is the process to select one person. Of course, behind this person, a political program must also appear. Some of the terms depicted in Table 6 give some indications about this aspect as, for example, ‘IRS, tax, amnesty’ with Cruz, ‘fossil, fuel, Wall, Street’ with Sanders. Similar themes appear under several candidates with different terminology such as ‘caliphate’ (Bush), ‘Islamic’ (Cruz), ‘ISIL’ (O’Malley). For Clinton, the term ‘affordable’ must be related to the Affordable Care Act (or health insurance reform).

5.4 Most specific sentences

Providing the most over-used terms is sometimes not enough to have a clear understanding of the candidate’s position on a given issue. Can one be more precise than the simple sequence of isolated words such as ‘balanced’, ‘budget’, ‘we’ (Kasich) or ‘IRS’, ‘tax’ (Cruz)? One possible approach is to extract a reduced set of specific sentences from each candidate. Such a sentence can be defined as the one having the largest number of over-used terms. As it is extracted from a transcript, the sentence is not necessarily syntactically perfect.

Based on this definition, one can read some examples of the most specific sentences per candidate. As an interesting first case, one can analyze the most characteristic sentence from Kasich’s comments, which is the following:

‘I have balanced budgets , the federal budget , the state of Ohio budget , we 're running a 2 billion dollar surplus , we ’re up 400,000 jobs , and in Washington we were able to have significant job growth whenever we balanced the budget of which I was the architect .’ (J. Kasich, 6 February 2016)

In this example, terms having a Z score larger than 5.0 are depicted in italics. The sentence is longer that the MSL (18.3) for this candidate. From a lexical perspective, one can see the over-used term ‘budget’, usually more frequently used in governmental speeches than in the electoral ones. Here the candidate wants to put forward his competence in generating balanced budgets as Governor of Ohio. During an electoral campaign, the word ‘tax’ is clearly more recurrent than ‘budget’ to discuss financial issue, in part because the term ‘tax’ is closer to citizens’ perception than the budget is. As another aspect, one can view that the preferred pronoun is ‘we’ and not ‘I’. With this choice, the person can be viewed by the audience as distant and cold ( Pennebaker, 2011 ). Looking back to Table 6 , one can see that the terms ‘Ohio’, ‘balanced’, ‘budget’, and ‘we’ and the first four most specific words describing Kasich’s utterances.

For Cruz, the most significant words depicted in Table 6 have a clearer meaning when reading two of his most specific sentences.

‘So the way you do it is you pass a tax plan like the tax plan I've introduced: a simple flat tax , 10 percent for individuals, and a 16 percent business flat tax , you abolish the IRS and here's the critical point, Maria , the business flat tax enables us to abolish the corporate income tax , the death tax , the Obamacare taxes , the payroll taxes , and they're border- adjustable , so every export pays no taxes whatsoever .’ (T. Cruz, 14 January 2016)

‘ And I' ll tell you , Hugh you know, it's interesting now that Donald promises that he will appoint justices who … who will defend religious liberty , but this is a man who , for 40 years, has given money to Jimmy Carter , to Joe Biden, to Hillary Clinton, to Chuck Schumer , to Harry Reid .’ (T. Cruz, 25 February 2016)

In this first example, the fiscal question appears with a proposition for a ‘simple flat tax’ and in the second, an attack against Trump, but a religious concern appears also in the background. These examples show that Cruz’s rhetoric is more complex with the highest LD mean and the largest percentage of BW (see Table 3 ). Moreover, Cruz’s explanations tend to include more names (see Table 4 ), and many of them (IRS, Maria, Obamacare, Donald, Carter, Biden, …) occur in these examples.

As demonstrated previously, Trump opted for a simple and direct communication style, preferring short sentences with simple words. The following remarks illustrate these aspects.

‘They don't like seeing bad trade deals , they don't like seeing higher taxes, they don't like seeing a loss of their jobs where our jobs have just been devastated.’ (D. Trump, 10 March 2016)

‘ I ‘ m spending all of my money, I ’ m not spending, I'm not getting any, I turned down, I turn down so much, I could have right now from special interests and donors, I could have double and triple what he ' s got.’ (D. Trump, 16 September 2015)

‘ Just excuse me , one second, Rand, … if you don't mind, Rand, you know, you are on last, you do have your 1 percent.’ (D. Trump, 16 September 2015)

In a few words, Trump is able to talk not about a single but a few topics. This sentence was selected through the over-used words ‘I’, ‘not’, ‘deal’ (see Table 6 ), as well as ‘bad’, ‘do’, ‘have’, and ‘just’. In the three sentences above, most of the words are less than six letters long (short words), and many of them are functional words (explaining his low LD). Moreover, these examples demonstrate the frequent use of symploces (repetition of the same formulation, e.g. they don’t like seeing …) in Trump’s comments. The last example illustrates how Trump can push away his opponents to place himself in the center of the debate.

From the set of the ten most over-used terms corresponding to H. Clinton depicted in Table 6 , the first following sentence contains four (Senator, Sanders, to, I). As previously with Trump, the first person singular pronoun is clearly over-used (I, me). This phenomenon appears in other languages and countries when analyzing electoral speeches as, for example, in France ( Labbé and Monière, 2008b ). A presidential electoral process can be positioned around one person or around a few issues (or programs). In the current study, two candidates (Clinton and Trump) have opted for centering their communication around their person. In the following sentences, one can also see two topics, usually more related to the Democrats, namely education, and health care reform.

‘Look, I have the greatest respect for Senator Sanders and for his supports and I 'm going to keep working as hard as I can to reach as many people of all ages about what I will do, what the experience and the ideas that I have that I will bring to the White House and I hope to have their support when I 'm the Democratic nominee.’ (H. Clinton, 17 January 2016)

‘ I think now what I ' ve called for is counsel for every child so that no child has to face any kind of process without someone who speaks and advocates for that child so that the right decision hopefully can be made.’ (H. Clinton, 11 February 2016)

‘Let’s make the Affordable Care Act work for everybody.’ (H. Clinton, 4 February 2016)

The specific sentences extracted from Sanders’ answers explain clearly his positions with respect to Wall Street, some of the large companies, or on education. Moreover, the first and last examples tackle one of the recurrent topics for the Democrat, for which the terms ‘college’, ‘university’, and ‘tuition’ are specific in Sanders’ rhetoric.

‘ Yes , I do believe that now after the American people bailed Wall Street out, yes , they should pay a Wall Street speculation tax so that we can make public colleges and universities tuition -free.’ (B. Sanders, 11 February 2016)

‘Why does the fossil fuel industry pay, spend huge amounts of money on campaign contributions ?’ (B. Sanders, 11 February 2016)

‘I do believe that in the year 2016 we have to look terms of public education as colleges as part of public education making public colleges and universities tuition free.’ (B. Sanders, 11 February 2016)

One can complement this study by considering the terms ignored or used very infrequently in this primary election. For example, no selected candidate is discussing really the problem of the national debt. The word ‘debt’ appears in some utterances, but mainly in the context of the education debt for the Democrats. In the Republican party, the federal debt is debated by Rubio, and marginally by Kasich, and Paul.

When a question is discussed, the choice of the word can make the difference. With the immigration issue for example, Trump prefers using the term ‘immigration’ presenting this question more at an abstract level. On the other hand, Clinton could want to accentuate the human aspect and uses in this case the word ‘immigrants’. Slight lexical differences can sometimes be important because, as mentioned by Lakoff and Wehling (2012) , ‘language is politics’.

This article has analyzed the style and the rhetoric used by the candidates during the 2016 US primary election. More precisely, this study has focused on the oral communication form using different TV debates in both political parties, a form less observed in previous studies.

During this primary election, Donald Trump presents clearly an atypical figure, employing short sentences, a reduced vocabulary, repeating the same arguments with simple words (see Table 2 ). When considering the most frequent lemmas, he is the single candidate to have the pronoun ‘I’ is the second rank (after the article ‘the’). The intensity of his ego can also be revealed by the fact that the most specific term in his dialogue is also the pronoun ‘I’ (see Table 6 ). In his answers, Trump prefers using intensively the verb construction (see Table 4 ), the pronoun ‘I’, and the negation (see Table 6 ). Among his most specific terms, one can see ‘Mexico’, and ‘deal’ reflecting two of his main concerns (immigration, and commercial trade agreements).

Hillary Clinton can also be characterized by a large use of the pronoun ‘I’ (fourth most frequent lemma, see Table 2 ) that is also over-used (see Table 6 ). None of the other Democrat candidates shows a clear intensive use of this pronoun. When considering overall stylistic indicators (see Table 3 ), Clinton, O’Malley, and Sanders present a high LD value as well as a higher number of BW and TTR ratio than the mean. Looking at her most specific sentences, Clinton tends to produce rather long sentences reflecting a more complex reasoning.

From overall stylistic measurements shown in Table 3 , Ted Cruz appears with higher values than the mean. His answers contain more nouns and names adopting a more descriptive rhetoric. As depicted in Figs 1 and 2 , Cruz represents a distinctive fraction of the Republican party. As one can see from his most specific terms and sentences, Cruz’s concerns are related to a reform of the fiscal system, and the health care system.

Our findings must be confirmed by other studies comparing other electoral campaigns and taking into account the written form (e.g. electoral speeches, party manifestos, Web sites of the candidates, social networks information flow).

This research was supported, in part, by the NSF under Grant #200021_149665/1. The author wants to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and remarks.

Argamon S. , Levitan S. 2005 . Measuring the Usefulness of Function Words for Authorship Attribution. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACH/ALLC Conference , Victoria University Press, Victoria (BC), pp. 1–3.

Arnold E. , Labbé D. 2015 . Vote for me. Don’t vote for the other one . Journal of World Languages , 2 ( 1 ): 32 – 49 .

Google Scholar

Baayen H. R. 2008 . Analysis Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Google Preview

Biber G. , Conrad S. , Leech G. 2002 . Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English . London : Longman .

Biber C. , Conrad S. 2009 . Register, Genre, and Style . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Bligh M. , Merolla J. , Schroedel J. R. , Gonzalez R. 2010 . Finding her voice: Hillary Clinton Rhetoric in the 2008 presidential campaign . Woman’s Studies , 39 ( 8 ): 823 – 50 .

Boller P. F. Jr. 2004 . Presidential Campaigns. From George Washington to George W. Bush . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Burrows J. F. 2002 . Delta: a measure of stylistic difference and a guide to likely authorship . Literary and Linguistic Computing , 17 ( 3 ): 267 – 87 .

Cech R. , Garabik R. , Altmann G. 2015 . Testing the thematic concentration of text . Journal of Quantitative Linguistics , 22 ( 3 ): 215 – 32 .

Covington M. A. , McFall J. D. 2010 . Cutting the Gordian Knot: the moving-average type-token ratio (MATTR) . Journal of Quantitative Linguistics , 17 ( 2 ): 94 – 100 .

Damerau F. J. 1975 . The use of function word frequencies as indicators of style . Computers and the Humanities , 9 ( 6 ): 271 – 80 .

Francis W. N. , Kucera H. 1982 . Frequency Analysis of English Usage . Boston, MA : Houghton Mifflin Co .

Greenacre M. 2017 . Correspondence Analysis in Practice . Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press .

Grieve J. 2007 . Quantitative authorship attribution: an evaluation of techniques . Literary and Linguistic Computing , 22 ( 3 ): 251 – 70 .

Grimmer J. , Stewart B. M. 2013 . Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts . Political Analysis , 21 ( 3 ): 267 – 97 .

Hart R. P. 1984 . Verbal Style and the Presidency. A Computer-based Analysis . Orlando, FL : Academic Press .

Hart R. P. , Childers J. P. , Lind C. J. 2013 . Political Tone. How Leaders Talk and Why . Chicago, IL : The University of Chicago Press .

Hewings A. , Painter C. , Polias J. , Dare B. , Rhys M. 2005 . Getting Started: Describing the Grammar of Speech and Writing . Milton Keynes : Open University Press .

Kubát M. , Cech R. 2016 . Quantitative analysis of US presidential inaugural addresses . Glottometrics , 34 : 14 – 27 .

Labbé D. 2007 . Experiments on authorship attribution by intertextual distance in English . Journal of Quantitative Linguistics , 14 ( 1 ): 33 – 80 .

Labbé C. , Labbé D. 2006 . A tool for literary studies . Literary & Linguistic Computing , 21 ( 2 ): 311 – 26 .

Labbé D. , Monière D. 2003 . Le discours gouvernemental. Canada, Québec, France (1945-2000). Paris : Honoré Champion .

Labbé D. , Monière D. 2008a . Les mots qui nous gouvernent. Le discours des premiers ministres québécois: 1960-2005 . Montréal, QC : Monière-Wollank .

Labbé D. , Monière D. 2008b . Je est-il un autre? In Proceedings JADT 2008 , Presses universitaires de Lyon, Lyon, pp. 647–56.

Labbé D. , Monière D. 2013 . La campagne présidentielle de 2012. Votez pour moi! Paris : L’Harmattan .

Lafon P. 1980 . Sur la variabilité de la fréquence des formes dans un corpus . Mots , 1 ( 1 ): 127 – 65 .

Lakoff G. , Wehling E. 2012 . The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic . New York, NY : Free Press .

Laver M. , Benoit K. , Garry J. 2003 . Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data . American Political Science Review , 97 ( 2 ): 311 – 31 .

Lebart L. , Salem A. , Berry L. 1998 . Exploring Textual Data . Dordrecht : Kluwer-Academic .

Lim E. T. 2002 . Five trends in presidential rhetoric: an analysis of rhetoric from George Washington to Bill Clinton . Presidential Studies Quarterly , 32 ( 2 ): 328 – 66 .

Marcus M. P. , Santorini B. , Marcinkiewicz M. A. 1993 . Building a large annotated corpus of English: the Penn Treebank . Computational Linguistics , 19 ( 2 ): 313 – 30 .

Millbank D. 2016 . Trump’s Fake-News Presidency. Washington Post , November 18th.

Muller C. 1992 . Principes et Méthodes de Statistique Lexicale . Paris : Honoré Champion .

O’Connor B. , Balasubramanyan R. , Routledge B. R. , Smith N. A. 2010 . From Tweets to Polls: Linking Text Sentiment to Public Opinion Time Series. In Proceedings 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media , AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 122–9.

Paradis E. 2011 . Analysis of Phylogenetics and Evolution with R . New York, NY : Springer .

Pauli F. , Tuzzi A. 2009 . The end of year addresses of the presidents of the Italian Republic (1948–2006): discourse similarities and differences . Glottometrics , 18 : 40 – 51 .

Pennebaker J. W. 2011 . The Secret Life of Pronouns. What our Words Say about us . New York, NY : Bloomsbury Press .

Popescu I. -I. 2009 . Word Frequency Studies . Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter .

Sainato M. 2016 . Email reveals clinton camp spied on sanders delegates before convention. Observer , November 14th. http://observer.com/2016/11/email-reveals-clinton-camp-spied-on-sanders-delegates-before-convention/ .

Saitou N. , Nei M. 1987 . The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees . Molecular Biology Evolution , 4 ( 4 ): 406 – 25 .

Savoy J. 2013 . The Federalist Papers revisited: a collaborative attribution scheme. In Proceedings ASIST 2013 , ASIST, Montreal, QC.

Savoy J. 2015a . Text clustering: an application with the State of the Union addresses . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 66 ( 8 ): 1645 – 54 .

Savoy J. 2015b . Comparative evaluation of term selection functions for authorship attribution . Digital Scholarship in the Humanities , 30 ( 2 ): 246 – 61 .

Savoy J. 2015c . Vocabulary growth study: an example with the State of the Union addresses . Journal of Quantitative Linguistics , 22 ( 4 ): 289 – 310 .

Savoy J. 2015d . Authorship attribution using political speeches. In Tuzzi A. , Benesova M. , Macutek J. (eds), Recent Contributions to Quantitative Linguistics , vol. 70 . Berlin : De Gruyter , pp. 153 – 64 .

Slatcher R. B. , Chung C. K. , Pennebaker J. W. , Stone L. D. 2007 . Winning words: individual differences in linguistic style among U.S. Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates . Journal of Research in Personality , 41 ( 1 ): 63 – 75 .

Stamatatos E. 2009 . A survey of modern authorship attribution methods . Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology , 60 ( 3 ): 538 – 56 .

Sylwester K. , Purver M. 2015 . Twitter language use to reflects psychological differences between democrats and republicans . PLoS One , 10 ( 9 ): 1 – 18 .

Tausczik Y. R. , Pennebaker J. W. 2010 . The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods . Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 29 ( 1 ): 24 – 54 .

Toutanova K. , Klein D. , Manning C. , Singer Y. 2003 . Feature-rich Part-of-speech Tagging with a Cyclid Dependency Network. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology - North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , ACL, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 252–5.

Tuzzi A. 2010 . What to put in the bag? Comparing and contrasting procedures for text clustering . Italian Journal of Applied Linguistics - Statistica Applicata , 22 ( 1 ): 81 – 98 .

Wilson T. , Hoffmann P. , Somasundaran S. , Kessler J. , Wiebe J. , Choi Y. , Cardie C. , Riloff E. , Patwardhan S. 2005 . Opinion Finder: A System for Subjectivity Analysis. In Proceedings Empirical Methods for Natural Language Processing , ACL, Stroudsburg, PA, Vancouver, BC, pp. 34–35.

Young L. , Soroka S. 2012 . Affective news: the automated coding of sentiment in political texts . Political Communication , 29 ( 2 ): 205 – 31 .

Yourish K. 2016 . Clinton and Trump Have a Terrible Approval Rating. Does it Matter? New York Times, June 3rd.

Yu B. 2008 . Classifying party affiliation from political speech . Journal of Information Technology & Politics , 5 ( 1 ): 33 – 48 .

Yu B. 2013 . Language and gender in congressional speech . Literary and Linguistic Computing , 29 ( 1 ): 118 – 32 .

Zhao Y. , Zobel J. 2007 . Entropy-based authorship search in large document collection. In Proceedings ECIR2007 . Heildelberg: Springer, LNCS #4425, pp. 381–39.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2055-768X
• Print ISSN 2055-7671
• Copyright © 2024 EADH: The European Association for Digital Humanities
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

clock This article was published more than  7 years ago

Donald Trump’s best speech of the 2016 campaign, annotated

Donald Trump delivered his best speech of the 2016 campaign on Thursday night in Charlotte

While previous attempts for Trump to get on-message and use prepared remarks have fallen flat -- mostly because Trump clearly wasn't into it -- his speech Thursday provided the kind of broadly appealing, focused and animated Trump that his advisers and GOP leaders will want to be seeing lots more of in the next two and a half months. The word "pivot" has been beaten to death in this campaign, but this is the closest we've come to the real thing.

Below is a transcript -- the first half drawn from Trump's prepared remarks and the second half an actual transcript of what he said -- and our annotations.

(And remember: You can annotate too by signing up for Genius . To see an annotation, click or tap the highlighted part of the transcript.

Thank you. It’s great to be here in Charlotte. I just met with our many amazing employees right up the road at our property.

I’d like to take a moment to talk about the heartbreak and devastation in Louisiana, a state that is very special to me.

We are one nation. When one state hurts, we all hurt – and we must all work together to lift each other up. Working, building, restoring together.

Our prayers are with the families who have lost loved ones, and we send them our deepest condolences. Though words cannot express the sadness one feels at times like this, I hope everyone in Louisiana knows that our country is praying for them and standing with them to help them in these difficult hours.

We are one country, one people, and we will have together one great future.

Tonight, I’d like to talk about the New American Future we are going to create together.

Last week, I laid out my plan to bring jobs back to our country.

On Monday, I laid out my plan to defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism.

On Tuesday, in Wisconsin, I talked about how we are going to restore law and order to this country.

Let me take this opportunity to extend our thanks and our gratitude to the police and law enforcement officers in this country who have sacrificed so greatly in these difficult times.

The chaos and violence on our streets, and the assaults on law enforcement, are an attack against all peaceful citizens. If I am elected President, this chaos and violence will end – and it will end very quickly.

Every single citizen in our land has a right to live in safety.

To be one united nation, we must protect all of our people. But we must also provide opportunities for all of our people.

We cannot make America Great Again if we leave any community behind.

Nearly Four in ten African-American children are living in poverty.I will not rest until children of every color in this country are fully included in the American Dream.

Jobs, safety, opportunity. Fair and equal representation. This is what I promise to African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and all Americans.

But to achieve this New American Future we must break from the failures of the past.

As you know, I am not a politician. I have worked in business, creating jobs and rebuilding neighborhoods my entire adult life. I’ve never wanted to use the language of the insiders, and I’ve never been politically correct – it takes far too much time, and can often make more difficult.

Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that, and I regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.

But one thing I can promise you is this: I will always tell you the truth.

I speak the truth for all of you, and for everyone in this country who doesn’t have a voice.

I speak the truth on behalf of the factory worker who lost his or her job.

I speak the truth on behalf of the Veteran who has been denied the medical care they need – and so many are not making it. They are dying.

I speak the truth on behalf of the family living near the border that deserves to be safe in their own country but is instead living with no security at all.

Our campaign is about representing the great majority of Americans – Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Conservatives and Liberals – who read the newspaper, or turn on the TV, and don’t hear anyone speaking for them. All they hear are insiders fighting for insiders.

These are the forgotten men and women in our society, and they are angry at so much on so many levels. The poverty, the unemployment, the failing schools, the jobs moving to other countries.

I am fighting for these forgotten Americans.

Fourteen months ago, I declared my campaign for the Presidency on the promise to give our government back to the people. Every day since then, I’ve worked to repay the loyalty and the faith that you have put in me.

Every day I think about how much is at stake for this country. This isn’t just the fight of my life, it’s the fight of our lives – together – to save our country.

I refuse to let another generation of American children be excluded from the American Dream. Our whole country loses when young people of limitless potential are denied the opportunity to contribute their talents because we failed to provide them the opportunities they deserved. Let our children be dreamers too.

Our whole country loses every time a kid doesn’t graduate from high school, or fails to enter the workforce or, worse still, is lost to the dreadful world of drugs and crime.

When I look at the failing schools, the terrible trade deals, and the infrastructure crumbling in our inner cities, I know all of this can be fixed - and it can be fixed very quickly.

In the world I come from, if something is broken, you fix it.

If something isn’t working, you replace it.

If a product doesn’t deliver, you make a change.

I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens.

That’s why I am running: to end the decades of bitter failure and to offer the American people a new future of honesty, justice and opportunity. A future where America, and its people, always – and I mean always – come first.

Aren’t you tired of a system that gets rich at your expense?

Aren’t you tired of the same old lies and the same old broken promises? And Hillary Clinton has proven to be one of the greatest liars of all time.

Aren’t you tired of arrogant leaders who look down on you, instead of serving and protecting you?

That is all about to change – and it’s about to change soon. We are going to put the American people first again.

I’ve travelled all across this country laying out my bold and modern agenda for change.

In this journey, I will never lie to you. I will never tell you something I do not believe. I will never put anyone’s interests ahead of yours.

And, I will never, ever stop fighting for you.

I have no special interest. I am spending millions of dollars on my own campaign – nobody else is.

My only interest is the American people.

So while sometimes I can be too honest, Hillary Clinton is the exact opposite: she never tells the truth. One lie after another, and getting worse each passing day.

The American people are still waiting for Hillary Clinton to apologize for all of the many lies she’s told to them, and the many times she’s betrayed them.

Tell me, has Hillary Clinton ever apologized for lying about her illegal email server and deleting 33,000 emails?

Has Hillary Clinton apologized for turning the State Department into a pay-for-play operation where favors are sold to the highest bidder?

Has she apologized for lying to the families who lost loved ones at Benghazi?

Has she apologized for putting Iran on the path to nuclear weapons?

Has she apologized for Iraq? For Libya? For Syria? Has she apologized for unleashing ISIS across the world?

Has Hillary Clinton apologized for the decisions she made that have led to so much death, destruction and terrorism?

Speaking of lies, we now know from the State Department announcement that President Obama lied about the $400 million dollars in cash that was flown to Iran. He denied it was for the hostages, but it was. He said we don’t pay ransom, but he did. He lied about the hostages – openly and blatantly – just like he lied about Obamacare.

Now the Administration has put every American travelling overseas, including our military personnel, at greater risk of being kidnapped. Hillary Clinton owns President Obama’s Iran policy, one more reason she can never be allowed to be President.

Let’s talk about the economy. Here, in this beautiful state, so many people have suffered because of NAFTA. Bill Clinton signed the deal, and Hillary Clinton supported it. North Carolina has lost nearly half of its manufacturing jobs since NAFTA went into effect.

Bill Clinton also put China into the World Trade Organization – another Hillary Clinton-backed deal. Your city of Charlotte has lost 1 in 4 manufacturing jobs since China joined the WTO, and many of these jobs were lost while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State – our chief diplomat with China. She was a disaster, totally unfit for the job.

Hillary Clinton owes the State of North Carolina a very big apology, and I think you’ll get that apology around the same time you’ll get to see her 33,000 deleted emails.

Another major issue in this campaign has been the border. Our open border has allowed drugs and crime and gangs to pour into our communities. So much needless suffering, so much preventable death. I’ve spent time with the families of wonderful Americans whose loved ones were killed by the open borders and Sanctuary Cities that Hillary Clinton supports.

I’ve embraced the crying parents who’ve lost their children to violence spilling across our border. Parents like Laura Wilkerson and Michelle Root and Sabine Durden and Jamiel Shaw whose children were killed by illegal immigrants.

My opponent supports Sanctuary Cities.

But where was the Sanctuary for Kate Steinle? Where was the Sanctuary for the children of Laura, Michelle, Sabine and Jamiel?

Where was the Sanctuary for every other parent who has suffered so horribly?

These moms and dads don’t get a lot of consideration from our politicians. They certainly don’t get apologies. They’ll never even get the time of day from Hillary Clinton.

But they will always come first to me.

Listen closely: we will deliver justice for all of these American Families. We will create a system of immigration that makes us all proud.

Hillary Clinton’s mistakes destroy innocent lives, sacrifice national security, and betray the working families of this country.

Please remember this: I will never put personal profit before national security. I will never leave our border open to appease donors and special interests. I will never support a trade deal that kills American jobs. I will never put the special interests before the national interest. I will never put a donor before a voter, or a lobbyist before a citizen.

Instead, I will be a champion for the people.

The establishment media doesn’t cover what really matters in this country, or what’s really going on in people’s lives. They will take words of mine out of context and spend a week obsessing over every single syllable, and then pretend to discover some hidden meaning in what I said.

Just imagine for a second if the media spent this energy holding the politicians accountable who got innocent Americans like Kate Steinle killed – she was gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times.

Just imagine if the media spent time and lots of time investigating the poverty and joblessness of the inner cities. Just think about how much different things would be if the media in this country sent their cameras to our border, to our closing factories, or to our failing schools.

Or if the media focused on what dark streets must be hidden in the 33,000 emails that Hillary Clinton illegally deleted.

Thank you. Instead every story is told from the perspective of the insider. It's the narrative of the people who rig the system, never the voice of the people it's been rigged against. Believe me. So many people suffering for so long in silence. No cameras. No coverage, no outrage from the media class that seems to get outrage over just about everything else. So, again, it's not about me. It's never been about me. It's been about all the people in this country who don't have a voice. I am running to be your voice.

Thank you. I'm running to be the voice for every forgotten part of this country that has been waiting and hoping for a better future.

I am glad that I make the powerful, and I mean very powerful a little uncomfortable now and again, including some of the powerful people, frankly, in my own party because it means that I'm fighting for real change, real change. There is a reason hedge fund managers, the financial lobbyists, the Wall Street investors are throwing their money all over Hillary Clinton because they know she will make sure the system stays rigged in their favor.

It's the powerful protecting the powerful. The insiders fighting for the insiders. I am fighting for you.

Here is the change I propose. On terrorism, we are going to end the era of nation-building and, instead, focus on destroying, destroying, destroying ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism.

We will use military, cyber, and financial warfare and work with any partner in the world and the Middle East that shares our goal in defeating terrorism. I have a message for the terrorists trying to kill our citizens. We will find you, we will destroy you and we will absolutely win and we will win soon.

On immigration, we will temporarily suspend immigration from any place where adequate screening cannot be performed, extreme vetting. Remember, extreme vetting. All applicants for immigration will be vetted for ties to radical ideology. And we will screen out anyone who doesn't share our values and love our people.

Anyone who believes Sharia Law supplants American law will not be given an immigrant visa.

If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society. Our values, and our tolerant way of life. Those who believe in oppressing women, guys, Hispanics, African-Americans, and people of different faiths are not welcome to join our great country.

We will promote our American values, our American way of life, and our American system of government, which are all, all the best in the world. My opponent on the other hand wants a 550 percent increase in Syrian refugees even more than already pouring into our country under President Obama. Her plan would bring in roughly 620,000 refugees from all refugee sending nations in her first term alone on top of all other immigration. Think of that. Think of that. What are we doing?

Hillary Clinton is running to be America's Angela Merkel and we have seen how much crime and how many problems that's caused the German people and Germany.

We have enough problems already, we do not need more. On crime we're going to add more police, more investigators, and appoint the best judges and prosecutors in the world.

We will pursue strong enforcement of federal laws. The gangs and cartels. And criminal syndicates terrorizing our people will be stripped apart one by one and they will be sent out of our country quickly. Their day is over. And it's going to end very, very fast. Our trade -- thank you. On trade, we're going to renegotiate NAFTA to make it better and if they don't agree, we will withdraw.

And likewise we are going to withdraw from Transpacific Partnership, another disaster.

Stand up to China on our terrible trade agreements and protect every last American job. Hillary Clinton has supported all of the major trade deals that have stripped this country of its jobs and its wealth. We owe $20 trillion. On taxes, we are going to massively cut tax rates for workers and small businesses creating millions of new good paying jobs.

We're going to get rid of regulations that send jobs overseas and we are going to make it easier for young Americans to get the credit they need to start a small business and pursue their dream.

On education, so important, we are going to give students choice and allow charter schools to thrive. We are going to end tenure policies that reward bad teachers and hurt our great, good teachers. My opponent wants to deny student choice and opportunity, all to get a little bit more money from the education bureaucracy. She doesn't care how many young dreams are dashed or destroyed and they are destroyed. Young people are destroyed before they even start. We are going to work closely with African-American parents and children. We are going to work with the parents' students. We are going to work with everybody in the African-American community, in the inner cities, and what a big difference that is going to make. It's one of the things I most look forward to doing.

This means a lot to me and it's going to be a top priority in a Trump administration. On healthcare, we are going to repeal and replace the disaster called ObamaCare. Countless Americans have been forced into part- time jobs, premiums are about to jump by double digits yet again and just this week, ETNA announced it is pulling out of the exchanges all over but also in North Carolina. We are going to replace this disaster with reforms that give you choice and freedom and control in healthcare at a much, much lower cost. You will have much better healthcare at a much lower cost and it will happen quickly.

On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government. In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law. I am going to forbid senior officials from trading favors for cash by preventing them from collecting lavish speaking fees through their spouses when they serve.

I'm going to ask my senior officials to sign an agreement not to accept speaking fees from corporations with a registered lobbyist for five years after leaving office, or from any entity tied to a foreign government.

Finally, we are going to bring our country together. It is so divided. We are going to bring it together. We are going to do it by emphasizing what we all have in common as Americans. We're going to reject bigotry and I will tell you the bigotry of Hillary Clinton is amazing. She sees communities of color only as votes and not as human beings. Worthy of a better future. It's only votes. It is only votes that she sees. And she does nothing about it. She has been there forever and look at where you are. If African-Americans voters give Donald Trump a chance by giving me their vote, the result for them will be amazing.

Look how badly things are going under decades of Democratic leadership. Look at the schools. Look at the poverty. Look at the 58 percent of young African-Americans not working. Fifty eight percent. It is it is time for a change. What do you have to lose by trying something new? I will fix it watch, I will fix it. We have nothing to lose. Nothing to lose. It is so bad. The inner cities are so bad, you have nothing to lose. They have been playing with you for 60, 70, 80 years, many, many decades. You have nothing to lose. I will do a great job.

This means so much to me. And I will work as hard as I can to bring new opportunity to places in our country which have not known it in a very, very long time. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party have taken African-American votes totally for granted. Because the votes have been automatically there for them, there has been no reason for Democrats to produce, and they haven't. They haven't produced in decades and decades. It's time to break with the failures of the past and to fight for every last American child in this country to have a better and a much, much brighter future.

In my administration every American will be treated equally, protected equally and honored equally. We will reject bigotry and hatred and oppression in all of its forms and seek a new future built on our common culture and values as one American people.

This is the change I am promising to all of you, an honest government, a great economy, and a just society for each and every American.

But we can never ever fix our problems by relying on the same politicians who created these problems in the first place. Can't do it. Seventy two percent of voters say our country is on the wrong track. I am the change candidate. Hillary Clinton is for the failed status quo to protect her special interests, her donors, her lobbyists, and others. It is time to vote for a new American future. Together, we will make America strong again. We will make America proud again, we will make America safe again. Friends and fellow citizens, come November, we will make America great again. Greater than ever before. Thank you, thank you. And God bless you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

• Advocacy & Campaign Fundraising Platform in Nigeria.
• Nonprofits Courses
• Political Campaigns
• Issue-Base Advocacy
• Online Petitions
• Campaign Candidates
• Becoming a Donor
• Online Fundraising
• Campaign Management
• Website Design/Apps
• Volunteer Recruitment
• Political Advertising
• Events Planning
• Social Media Marketing
• PR/Media Outreach
• Email Marketing
• Political Consulting
• Text Messaging
• Phone Banking
• How It Works
• Sell Products
• Campaign Course
• Campaign Store
• Campaign Events
• Campaign News
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Campaign Guidelines
• Campaign Laws
• Free Resources
• Photo Gallery
• YouTube Videos
• Press Releases
• Testimonials

• By PolitiVos
• Campaign Guidelines , Latest News , Politics Today

How to Write Election Campaign Speech in 10 Steps

This guide provides essential tips on how to write election campaign speech that will resonate with your audience. Writing an election campaign speech is a critical and complex process that requires careful planning, research, and effective communication skills. A campaign speech can make or break a candidate’s chances of success in an election, and thus it must be crafted with the utmost attention to detail and relevance.

A well-crafted speech can help a candidate to connect with voters, build trust, and win support for their candidacy. However, writing a compelling speech that resonates with the audience can be a daunting task. To write an effective election campaign speech, one needs to understand their audience, have a clear campaign message, and convey that message with passion and conviction.

In this process, it is important to keep in mind the tone and style of the speech, the audience’s values and beliefs, and the specific goals of the campaign. Here are useful tips and strategies to help candidates write a successful election campaign speech. Contact us now to help you conduct a thorough research and create an effective political campaign speech that will convey your values and policies of the political party or candidate and resonate with the audience and stakeholders.

Step 1: Define your audience

Before you start writing your campaign speech, you must first define your audience. Who are you speaking to? What are their concerns, hopes, and aspirations? What are the issues that matter to them? By understanding your audience, you can tailor your speech to their needs and concerns and connect with them on a more personal level.

Step 2: Craft a powerful opening

The opening of your speech is crucial, as it sets the tone and captures the attention of your audience. Start with a strong and compelling statement that immediately grabs their attention. You could use a statistic, a quote, or a personal story to draw them in and make them want to listen to what you have to say.

Don’t Miss:  How to Develop Campaign Manifesto in 8 Steps

Step 3: focus on your message.

Your campaign speech must have a clear and concise message that reflects your values, beliefs, and vision for the future. Focus on the issues that matter to your audience and demonstrate how your policies and plan of actions will address their concerns. Be specific and provide examples of how you will make a difference if elected as a president, house of representative, senator, governor or even state assembly member.

Step 4: Use persuasive language

The language you use in your speech is essential in persuading your audience to vote for you. Use persuasive language that appeals to their emotions, values, and aspirations. Use simple and easy-to-understand language that everyone can relate to. Avoid using jargon, technical terms, or complex sentences that may confuse or alienate your audience.

Step 5: Be authentic and genuine

Authenticity and genuineness are crucial when delivering a campaign speech. You must be honest and sincere in your message and connect with your audience on a personal level. Share your personal experiences, past records, values, and beliefs that demonstrate your authenticity and inspire trust and confidence in your leadership.

Step 6: Use humor and storytelling

Humor and storytelling are excellent tools for engaging your audience and keeping their attention. Use anecdotes, personal stories, or jokes to add some lightness and humor to your speech. However, be careful not to offend or belittle anyone, as this could harm your credibility and reputation.

You May Like:  Impacts of Personality Politics in Nigeria

Step 7: use rhetorical devices.

Rhetorical devices, such as repetition, alliteration, and metaphors, can make your speech more memorable and impactful. Use these devices strategically to emphasize your message and create a lasting impression on your audience.

Step 8: Address your opponent’s weaknesses

When writing a campaign speech, it’s essential to address your opponent’s weaknesses without attacking or insulting them. Highlight your opponent’s weaknesses, and demonstrate how your policies and plans are superior to theirs. However, be respectful and avoid personal attacks or mudslinging, as this could harm your reputation and credibility.

Step 9: End with a call to action

The conclusion of your campaign speech should inspire your audience to take action and vote for you. End your political campaign speech with a powerful call to action that encourages people to support your campaign, volunteer, or donate to your cause. Provide specific instructions on how they can get involved in your movement and make a difference.

Read:  The Roles of the Media in Nigerian Elections

Step 10: practice and rehearse.

Finally, practice your speech as much as possible before delivering it to your audience. Rehearse in front of a mirror, record yourself, or practice in front of a friend or family member. This will help you identify areas that need improvement, work on your delivery skills, and build your confidence.

Wrapping up: How to Write Election Campaign Speech

In conclusion, writing an election campaign speech can be a challenging task, but with the right approach and preparation, anyone can deliver a compelling and impactful speech. The first step is to understand the audience and their needs and concerns. This helps to craft a message that resonates with them and addresses their issues.

It is also important to have a clear and concise structure for the speech, with a powerful opening that captures the audience’s attention, a strong middle that reinforces the main points, and a memorable closing that leaves a lasting impression.

Related:  How To Hire A Political Campaign Team

To make the speech more persuasive, using rhetorical devices such as repetition, analogy, and emotional appeal can be effective. However, it is important to ensure that the speech is based on accurate and verifiable facts and not just rhetoric. Rehearsing the speech several times before the actual delivery can help to boost confidence and ensure a smooth delivery.

It is also important to get feedback from others and make necessary adjustments to the speech based on their feedback. By following these tips and putting in the necessary effort and practice, you can write and deliver a winning campaign speech.

Related posts:

Leave A Comment

Signup to enjoy access.

Forgot Password

Support a progressive cause or campaign.

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions

Campaign Speech

Campaign speech generator.

When you think of campaign speeches, the first thing that pops out of your mind is election period– be it a presidential election or a school-associated election. But just like a persuasive speech , you must be able to get your message across the public otherwise, they would never vote for you. Sure, you are famous and well-loved by the public, but what makes you different from the rest of the other renowned and beloved politicians and other student leaders? That is where you need to stand out from the rest of your competitors.

• Speech Examples
• Special Occasion Speech

All competitors promise the same thing– programs that will benefit the masses and a better state of living. Take for example the victory of current Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. In the 2016 national elections, he won in a landslide vote. Despite his many controversies and jokes bordering on insults, he is seen as a genuine genuine person who speaks from within (no matter how offensive he may seem). But perhaps what made him win the elections were the promises he made to the Filipino people such as: shifting to a federal form of government, addressing abortion and contraception issues, creating an improved agrarian and tax reform program, and forging a partnership with China while maintaining strong relationships with the United States, among others. You may also see youth speech .

Campaign speeches do not only try to persuade the masses to vote for them, but also to do their best to excite, and motivate, and compensate for weaknesses in other parts of the campaign. Good speakers try their best to make it look natural, but truth be told, it is actually harder than it looks. There are some specific techniques that you can apply in order to make your speech more effective. Whatever purpose your campaign speech will be used for, make sure that you deliver it in a way that will convince everyone that you are the right candidate for the job. You may also see  Self-Introduction Speech .

Listed below are some campaign speech examples you can use:

1. delivering your own student council speech.

Speak slowly.  Never, ever rush your campaign speech. If you do so, you might end up not making sense at all. Even when your content is top-notch, but if your delivery and speaking skills are not really good enough, it will not mean a thing, especially to your audience. Research actually shows that people fear delivering a speech more than death itself. It is perhaps because of the anxiety and tension placed on you as you give your speech. To deal with that, just breathe in the middle of your speech. The moment you begin inhaling and exhaling, use that time to recover the words that you are going to say and then, continue your speech.

Talk to the audience like you’re having a conversation . Talk casually, but not too casually. Remember, when you deliver a campaign speech, the audience is not going to be just your friends, but also your colleagues, peers, former instructors, and people with authority or power. Though it does not hurt to crack a joke once a while to lighten the atmosphere, make sure that it is not only the jokes they recall. Speak casually, yet speak in a way that the public’s undivided attention is needed. You may also see orientation speech .

Keep your words simple and direct. Students are known to have a short attention span which makes it a challenge for the candidates to get all their points across without boring the audience halfway. Deliver it in a way that is short and easy enough to make your audience understand all the points that you are trying to emphasize, especially with your promises. You may also see presentation speech .

Read it aloud to see how it sounds.  Best to try and practice your speech in front of a mirror. Try to visualize yourself speaking in front of the student body. Once you’ve done so, rehearse like it is going to be your first and last speech you will be delivering to the students. If ever you need assistance in doing so, it is best to grab a friend to help guide you on the points you should emphasize. You may also see motivational speech .

2. Structuring a Campaign Speech

Tailor your message to your audience in specific ways. Before you start writing, think about the audience you are addressing. Who is this speech for: the students or the general public? Remember, content is king and presentation is queen. Even though there is no right or wrong way in presenting your speech, each type of audience is different that the same campaign speech would have the same expected impact twice. Understand your audience well enough to make adjustments to your speech as to custom-fit the necessary points you wish to deliver towards them.

Outline your speech. All forms of writing has a beginning, middle and end. Outlining your thoughts first will help you stay on track as you write the speech. The beginning needs to catch people’s attention and raise the questions you’re going to answer. The middle needs to provide the answers, and the end connects the answers back to the questions. In very simple terms: You tell them what you’re going to tell them. Then, you tell them. Then you tell them what you told them.

Make your point quickly. Once you begin your speech with a theme or a main idea, go directly with what you are trying to say. For example, if you beat around the bush too much, you will not be going anywhere. You have to convince them to listen to you. There’s a lot of ways to get this done. You can use a story, a challenge, a joke, or just vividly describe a problem. You just need to get the audience’s attention quickly. Earn their attention and don’t expect it to come to you. You may also see informative speech .

Support your theme. Once you’ve got their attention, don’t let go. The middle of your speech needs to explain the issues you raised in the introduction speech and convince people that you can do something about them, but you need to vary the way you tackle the issues.

You want to have a good mix of facts, feelings, and action. If you only talk facts, your audience will get bored. Only talk feelings, and you’ll wear them out. Only talk action, and it invites disbelief, because you haven’t offered enough factual and emotional support for your argument. You may also see thank-you speech

Raise the stakes at the end. The conclusion is just as important as the introduction. It’s the last chance you have to leave an impression, so make sure they remember you by raising the stakes. Make it bigger than that—something that makes them feel weaker for not supporting you and stronger for supporting you. You may also see appreciation speech .

Play to your strengths. Identify which appeals you have on your side and emphasize those aspects of your argument. Should you be lucky enough to have all three, you don’t have much more to do than make sure all the words of your speech are in the right order. However, most arguments are going to be weaker or stronger in one or more areas.You may also see declamation speech .

If your biggest appeal is associational, your argument is less about specific points than it is about you. Design your speech to emphasize your biography and why it makes you trustworthy. People elect a person, not a set of ideas.

If your biggest appeal is emotional, keep your speech short, so that the audience doesn’t notice the logical flaws. Foe example, adjust your energy level to the audience’s. If they’re agitated, start slowly. If they’re bored, then start off at a higher energy level. Always work to an emotional crescendo, however. Never start at the emotional level you want to finish at. You may also see informative speech .

If your biggest appeal is logical, break up the facts with feeling. You can’t risk boring your audience to death, so you need to break up your logical propositions into bite-sized chunks. Think of it as the spoonful of sugar principle—a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.You may also see welcome speech .

Make your audience understand with clear logical appeals. Logical appeals are actually the strongest appeals, but they are the slowest to take effect. It takes longer to make someone understand a problem than it does to make them mad–or make them believe you’re a part of their group.You may also see farewell speech .

Stoke the passions of your audience with an emotional appeal. Emotional appeals are some of the most powerful appeals, particularly when you want to turn your audience against something or someone.

Whether you end up winning or losing at the end of the day, accept that defeat with grace and humility. Never allow that loss to discourage you in doing better the next time around. Adapt, learn, grow, and observe. Even in victory, there is always room for improvement. The art of persuading others is an art that takes time to master. It is a slow and long process, but you will eventually get there. Keep that head high and walk in confidence! You may also see leadership speech .

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Write a Campaign Speech announcing your candidacy.

Create a Campaign Speech focusing on key policy proposals.

• Dissertation
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Book Report/Review
• Research Proposal
• Math Problems
• Proofreading
• Movie Review
• Cover Letter Writing
• Personal Statement
• Nursing Paper
• Argumentative Essay
• Research Paper
• Discussion Board Post

How to Write a Presidential Speech?

Table of Contents

Running for student government election and looking for a strong presidential campaign speech example? Public speaking is quite challenging and requires a specific set of advanced skills.

President’s talks are direct communications between the president and the people of the country. They connect people across the nations and compel them to take actions which have vital consequences for the growth.

Those happen on specific occasions like president’s inaugurals, f.e. They can be responses to imperatives or represent initiatives, declaring the policy and setting people on a new course.

Compelling presentations combine strategic writing, comprehensive planning, and confident delivery. In this guide, you will find useful tips on how to convince your audience to support your cause or join your team.

How to write a presidential speech

Whether it is an election of the president or a school-associated election, the speech has to be persuasive and convey a clear relevant message across the public. Speakers have to convince everybody that they are the right candidates for the job and persuade people to vote for them.

How to write a presidential campaign speech?

Keep it simple. The most effective presentations are written in clear language and short sentences. Use these quick tips to present your main points convincingly and intelligently.

• Speak about major issues that matter to voters . Create an outline of talking points.
• Keep sentences short and related to your key message.
• Thank your audience for attending the event and make them feel you are chatting with each of them .
• Write like people talk and use the problem-solution format .
• Present your ability to make changes for the better happen. Show your passion.
• Avoid insults and focus on the bright side .
• Repeat key themes, using repetitive phrases at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end.
• When concluding, encourage people to take action and thank them for their time.
• Take inspiration from the best politicians and public speakers. Read powerful pieces, which stood the test of time.

How to start a presidential speech

It’s critical to start a public speaking piece correctly. Brainstorm several essential ideas before writing.

Outline what you would like to say in your introduction. In this part, you should include an appropriate greeting, acknowledge important people, and briefly explain the reasons for your public speaking.

… How to do it right?

• Include your greeting in the first couple of sentences.
• Acknowledge your audience and everyone of importance.
• Briefly speak about the objective of your presentation.
• Use some humor to break the ice, if appropriate.

Presidential speech examples

Now, as we have discussed the key ideas on how to write a presidential campaign speech, we’ll move on to a bit of practice.

If you have never written speeches before, you might be slightly unsure. There would be dozens of questions, like:

• Where to find exciting ideas worth including in your piece?
• How to organize them?
• How to communicate your great ideas to an audience?

Speechwriting is an art that requires a lot of work and dedication. If you face writing issues, the best thing for you is learning from others and looking for inspiration in a good presidential speech example.

Good examples can help candidates create exciting and motivating public speaking pieces.

Presidential campaign speech example

Are you willing to participate in school government elections? See this campaign presentation written by a student for additional inspiration.

Hello, my fellow Americans, my name is Kate Smith. I am running for school president. You might be saying to yourself: “Is Kate qualified to lead us as a student body president? She has been at our school for only one year.” I have several great reasons why you should vote for me. I have a sense of humor. I really enjoy being involved in school life. I am persistent, and I always put all my energy into everything I do no matter how long it takes. I always finish what I start doing. I am a compassionate leader and promise to listen to your opinions before making decisions. I come from a different school, and I have some new ideas for you. Vote for me if you are ready for a change. Should you elect me, I will never let you down. Thank you for listening.

Presidential acceptance speech example

Take a look at presidential acceptance speech example which can serve you as a template if you lack ideas on how to start.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I especially welcome my family and friends who have traveled here to support me. I promise I won’t bore you with a long speech. I’m honored and privileged to have been elected as president of our club. I will do my best to meet the challenge. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the great performance of our previous leader Richard White. He guided us in carrying out many projects for the benefits of our community. Congratulations to our new vice president Alice Brown, our new board members, and all our fellow club members who have shown their confidence in me. I am grateful for your tremendous support and look forward to serving with you in order to make people’s lives better.

Presidential election speech example

There are plenty of online resources, where students can find a memorable presidential election speech example.

Get a better understanding of how to make it all appealing to voters. Review a short passage created for an imaginary candidate.

Thank you all for being here, your warm welcome, and friendly support. I know you are here because our country has come to a crossroad. In fact, it’s the most critical election of our lifetime. You have to choose whether our society makes a U-turn or moves forward to a great future and prosperity. It’s up to us, whether we change the existing political landscape of our country or not. Loads of issues divide us into small confronting groups. But I would rather focus on the common grounds that we all share and need to cultivate. These are issues where we can make progress.

How to cite a presidential speech

There are specific rules on citing a presidential speech in every citation style – APA, MLA, Harvard or Chicago. In this article, we provide students with templates showing how to cite a presidential speech in Chicago style, and how to cite a presidential speech in APA style.

You need a documented source of presentation in video, text (an online transcript, a book) or recorded audio. To format your citations properly, you have to write down the following information:

• Speaker’s name and surname.
• Date when a piece was delivered.
• Name of the editor.

How to cite a presidential speech in Chicago style?

Use the following structure to cite a book :

Speaker’s Surname, Name. “Title.” Year of Delivery. In Title of Book, edited by Editor. City, State: Publisher, Year of Publication.

Citing online transcript:

Speaker’s Surname, Name. “Title.” Speech, Location, Date. “Webpage Title,” Site Title. Accessed Date. URL.

How to cite a presidential speech in APA style?

Use APA citation of a book :

Online transcript citation :

We hope that our easy tips on how to write a presidential speech and on how to cite a presidential speech will help you succeed in creating most stunning.

If you follow our guidelines, the only thing left to worry about would be: Where is the teleprompter for a presidential speech?

The teleprompter is a beneficial device that allows speakers to look natural and have no risk of forgetting or losing lines. We also recommend having a printed copy of your presentation for even more confidence.

Afraid your presidential speech won’t be high-end? Hand it to our writers, and get a top-notch text back! Psst, it’s done in a few clicks only…

Starting an Essay on Advertising

Problem solution essay topics.

Essay on Ambition: How to Make it Successful?

• Cool Things a New POTUS Gets to Do
• Ailments and Medical Problems
• In the Event of an Apocalypse
• Cool Facts About the Secret Service
• Presidents in the Illuminati
• Pics Before & After Major Events
• Feuds with Vice Presidents
• Biggest Firsts in POTUS History
• The Greatest Presidential Speeches
• POTUSes' Most Controversial Pardons, Ranked
• Normal Things a POTUS Can't Do
• Rules All Former POTUSes Have to Follow
• Fun Facts About Air Force One
• Real Pics from US Presidential Funerals
• The Mysterious Book of Secrets
• Photos from Their Wedding Days
• POTUSes' Biggest Regrets in Office
• After the Left the White House

The Best Presidential Speeches of All Time

Presidential speeches are often remembered for one great phrase, memorable line, or rhetorical flourish that makes its way into the history books. But they should be seen as more than collections of memorable words - in fact, as documents of their time and place. Great presidential speeches are made in the context of crises, challenges, and times of great peril. But they can also inspire, uplift, and encourage. The truly great speeches manage to do both at once.

What's less well-known about many of the great addresses by presidents that they're short. Maybe the most famous speech in American history, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, is just over two minutes long. Many others, rather than being long rambles of adjectives and superlatives, are fewer than one thousand words, and lasted just 10 minutes. They didn't need thousands and thousands of words to make their point, just a few well-chosen ones given by a dynamic speaker.

Here are the greatest and most inspiring presidential speeches of all time, be sure to upvote those that inspire you the most!  

The Gettysburg Address

President Lincoln delivered his most famous speech just five months after the Battle of Gettysburg, at the dedication of the site's military cemetery. There is no existing final copy, and the five surviving manuscripts of the speech all have slightly different word choices. The speech was just 10 sentences long, and took two and a half minutes to deliver.

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

President Lincoln gave his second inaugural address on March 4, 1865, as the Civil War was reaching its bloody conclusion. With reconstruction between the North and South looming, Lincoln paused to take stock of what had been lost, and what could be gained. It was just 700 words long, and took around five minutes to deliver.

Kennedy's Inaugural Address

President Kennedy's only inaugural address was one of the shortest on record, fewer than 1,400 words and taking only 13 minutes and 42 seconds. But it perfectly encapsulated the social change, economic prosperity, and political upheaval Kennedy was walking into.

Washington's Farewell Address

President Washington actually wrote a version of his farewell to the American people after his first term, but decided to run for a second given the precarious state of the country. It was first published in the American Daily Advertiser newspaper, then in papers and pamphlets around the country. Washington never actually gave the address as a speech.

Kennedy's "We Choose to Go to the Moon" Speech

While President Kennedy had declared the United States's intention to put a man on the Moon in May 1961, the idea didn't truly resonate with the American people until his speech in September of the next year. In front of a massive crowd at Rice University, Kennedy managed to make Americans enthusiastic about spending billions of dollars on a prospect with no guarantee of success.

FDR's Infamy Speech

President Roosevelt's speech to a Joint Session of Congress the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor served to emphasize the idea of America as the victim of a cowardly sneak attack, rather than as a player in a complicated geopolitical struggle. Lasting just seven minutes, the speech let it be known that isolationism was no longer an option - and less than an hour later, the US declared war on Japan.

Reagan's Brandenburg Gate Speech

President Reagan's speech at an event commemorating the 750th anniversary of the founding of Berlin was little noticed in the American press, and hotly criticized by Communist media outlets, who found it inflammatory. Even Reagan's staff were divided on the speech's tone and call to disarmament, but one key phrase in the middle of the speech stuck out, and became a rallying cry for Reagan's final year in office.

Eisenhower's Farewell Address

Upon leaving office in January 1961, President Eisenhower cautioned against the growing influence of the defense industry. He warned the American people that the vast ratcheting up of defense spending and arms production could one day become a threat to our own liberty. Eisenhower deemed this the "military-industrial complex," a phrase now in the common vernacular.

FDR’s First Inaugural Address

Having won a landslide victory over Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt took the opportunity to deliver a fairly short speech of around 20 minutes, meant to reassure the nation. The address became famous for its optimistic tone, in spite of the raging Great Depression.

Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech

Given a few months before the Republican nominating convention, historians believe Lincoln's speech at New York City's Cooper Union sealed his winning of the nomination. The speech, one of Lincoln's longest, laid out his views on what seemed to be the only important issues of the time - slavery and secession. He forcefully and clearly laid out his views, juxtaposing them with the Founding Fathers'.

Teddy Roosevelt's "Man with the Muck-Rake" Speech

Roosevelt had been the first president to actively interface with the press, holding conferences and elevating the position of Press Secretary to his cabinet. In his April 1906 speech , the progressive president outlined his support of the crusading journalists who were bringing to light the abuses and exploitation of America's rapidly industrializing society. In doing so, he introduced the term "muckraker" into the popular vernacular.

Jefferson's First Inaugural

Thomas Jefferson was sworn in under a cloud of controversy, as, when he and Aaron Burr tied in the Electoral College, the election of 1800 had to be decided in the House of Representatives. With Jefferson finally emerging victorious, and the nation teetering on the edge, he spoke of the need to find common ground between the two parties controlling American politics at the time. 

George W. Bush's Post 9/11 Speech

With the nation reeling in the wake of the September 11th attacks, President Bush addressed the country with a short but powerful message . Since the culprits behind the attacks were still unknown, Bush spoke to the resoluteness of the American spirit, and encouraged the people not to be overtaken by fear of what was ahead.

FDR's 1941 State of the Union

Roosevelt spoke to a nation girding for war in 1941, reminding the people of what was at stake in the Second World War. The speech became known as the " Four Freedoms Speech," as Roosevelt advocated for freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. The speech was criticized by anti-war contingents, but came to be seen as a kind of shorthand for why the United States was fighting.

Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural

Reagan strode into office declaring his intention to sweep away the growing bureaucracy and economic stagnation that had plagued previous administrations. And while Reagan's address never directly mentions the American hostages being held in Iran, the tough message of the speech was clear, and the hostages were released while Reagan was speaking.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Johnson's "We Shall Overcome" Speech

On March 15, 1965, President Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress on behalf of the Voting Rights Act and to denounce the violence attacks on marchers in Selma, Alabama. While many questioned Johnson's motives in giving the speech (he'd been on the other side of the civil rights debate until late into the 1950s), nobody could question his sincerity after hearing it.

"Truman Doctrine" Speech

On March 12, 1947, President Truman addressed a Joint Session of Congress on the recent crises in Greece and the Turkish Straits. Truman made it clear that the US would attempt to contain the spread of Communism in both countries, as one falling would lead to the other falling - the "Domino Theory" that became used as a justification for the Cold War. Truman espoused the dangers the world was facing, and the cost of inaction. Historians point to this speech as the beginning of the Cold War that would dominate US foreign policy for the next 40 years.

Obama's "A More Perfect Union" Speech

In the throes of the 2008 Democratic primary, Barack Obama had become embroiled in a controversy over his previous association with an inflammatory pastor named Jeremiah Wright. At a campaign event in March, Obama spoke of race relations in America in general, and of his association with Wright in particular, in a fiery speech that some pundits believe won him the Democratic nomination.

Famous quote: " I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the Black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of Black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Nixon's "Silent Majority" Speech

President Nixon used this term in a November 1969 speech prevailing upon the American people to support the Vietnam War. He was referencing the great mass of blue collar and suburban conservatives who weren't joining anti-war protest marches, weren't participating in the counterculture, and preferred to not speak up. Nixon didn't invent the phrase, though, as several other prominent figures had used it, including Nixon's own vice president, Spiro Agnew.

Woodrow Wilson's Second Inaugural

While Wilson ran on the slogan, "He Kept Us Out of War," by the time of his second inauguration in March 1917, it was clear that US neutrality couldn't last. German attacks on merchant shipping had increased, and a number of American citizens had been killed on ships flying neutral flags. Wilson's speech prepared the nation to enter a war it was still divided about.

• Current Politics

Lists about the history and quirks of America's highest office.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Communication Skills
• Public Speaking
• Speechwriting

How to Write a Campaign Speech

Last Updated: December 28, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Lynn Kirkham . Lynn Kirkham is a Professional Public Speaker and Founder of Yes You Can Speak, a San Francisco Bay Area-based public speaking educational business empowering thousands of professionals to take command of whatever stage they've been given - from job interviews, boardroom talks to TEDx and large conference platforms. Lynn was chosen as the official TEDx Berkeley speaker coach for the last four years and has worked with executives at Google, Facebook, Intuit, Genentech, Intel, VMware, and others. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 804,534 times.

A good campaign speech can persuade, excite, and motivate, compensating for weaknesses in other parts of the campaign. Although good speakers make it look natural, there are actually specific techniques you can use to make your own speeches more effective, techniques which apply to all manner of campaign speeches. Whether your speech is for a student election or governmental election, you can use these techniques to transform your speech into one everyone will be talking about.

Sample Speeches

Delivering Your Own Student Council Speech

• A lot of people get nervous when they give a speech, and when people get nervous they talk fast. But fast talkers seem untrustworthy. So if you get nervous, space out your words (literally, put five spaces in between each word on the page) to keep your speech measured.

• Don't go overboard with informality. You're asking to lead your peers, so they need to trust you can do that. Most people can't lead well, so to convince them you can lead well, your speech should also reflect that you're more capable than an average person. You need to strike a balance. Speak at a level just above the level of a typical conversation.

• Instead of: "We need to address the way we schedule our lunch breaks in a reasonable but fair way, because the way we do it now isn't fair to anyone."
• Try: "We have people eating lunch at 10:30 am. They're still serving breakfast at Burger King at 10:30! It doesn't make sense! By the time 2:00 rolls around, the early lunch kids are starving. There is a better way. We all know it."

Structuring a Campaign Speech

• So, if you’re talking to one classroom, don’t only talk to the classroom about a general problem the school has. Talk to the classroom about how that general problem affects them and how you can change it.
• For example, don’t say: “The breaks in between homeroom and first period aren’t long enough.” Say: “Everybody in homeroom has gotten at least one demerit for being late to first period. We can’t get all the way from North Campus to South Campus in time. Elect me as homeroom representative, and I won’t let the administration forget it.”

• The beginning needs to catch people’s attention and raise the questions you’re going to answer. The middle needs to provide the answers, and the end connects the answers back to the questions. In very simple terms: You tell them what you’re going to tell them. Then, you tell them. Then you tell them what you told them.

• Don’t say: “My name is Joe Blow, and I’m running for City Council. I’m a member of…”
• Instead, get right to it. Say: “Not a single person in this city thinks the parking situation on Main St. is adequate. No one.”
• There's a lot of ways to get this done. You can use a story, a challenge, a joke, or just vividly describe a problem. You just need to get the audience's attention quickly. Earn their attention, don't expect it to come to you.

• You want to have a good mix of facts, feelings, and action. If you only talk facts, your audience will get bored. Only talk feelings, and you’ll wear them out. Only talk action, and it invites disbelief, because you haven’t offered enough factual and emotional support for your argument.

• To continue with the parking example, don’t end your speech talking about the width and number of parking spaces on Main St. Make it bigger than that—something that makes them feel weaker for not supporting you and stronger for supporting you.
• “This isn’t just about parking spaces. The parking situation is just a symptom of everything that’s wrong with the Council in this city. We’ve asked. We’ve begged. We’ve done all we could. Now we have to send a message that they can’t just ignore us.” With this kind of appeal, you put the listener in a position where they are either a person who votes for you or a person who lets themselves be ignored. Most people will take the first choice.

Writing a Political Stump Speech

• Your speech needs a clear beginning, middle, and end.
• The beginning needs to hook the audience, you need to keep them interested through the middle, and the end should leave them nodding their heads in agreement, applauding and on their feet.

• Staying on message is about more than repeating yourself. Focus on a problem and then offer a solution. Say your issue is healthcare. That’s a multifaceted issue, so bring up specific problems, and offer specific solutions.
• For example, start by offering the problem: “Prescription drug costs are too high!” Give a few details or anecdotes to illustrate the magnitude of the problem, and then offer your solution: “And that’s why we’re going to negotiate directly with the drug companies to lower prices.”

• They are one of us and deserve our allegiance because they protect us.
• They are one of us and understand us because they have lived a life like mine.

• Emotional appeals can turn audiences against things for a simple reason: anger and fear are easy emotions to stimulate.
• For example, when a politician says: “The system is rigged! They think they’ve got you fooled, but I know different.” They are making an emotional appeal based on stoking the anger of the audience. When they imply that “they” think of the audience as fools, the speaker plays to the audience’s sense of ridicule. This infuriates the audience, turning the audience against “them.”

• For example, "Very few of us would argue with the proposition that 99/3=33. That’s because we’ve been logically convinced of its truth. There’s almost nothing a person could do to convince us otherwise, and therein lays the power of a logical appeal. However, it took us far longer to understand division than it did for us to feel anger or fear, or understand that we were part of a group."

• If your biggest appeal is associational, your argument is less about specific points than it is about you. Design your speech to emphasize your biography and why it makes you trustworthy. People elect a person, not a set of ideas.
• If your biggest appeal is emotional, keep your speech short, so that the audience doesn’t notice the logical flaws. Adjust your energy level to the audience's. If they're agitated, start slowly. If they’re bored, then start off at a higher energy level. Always work to an emotional crescendo, however. Never start at the emotional level you want to finish at.
• If your biggest appeal is logical, break up the facts with feeling. You can’t risk boring your audience to death, so you need to break up your logical propositions into bite-sized chunks. Think of it as the spoonful of sugar principle—a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.

• If you will be speaking at a podium or beside a table, put your notes on a piece of paper or a notepad--not notecards. Very few people can shuffle notecards discretely enough to look professional while doing it.
• If you won’t have a podium and you must use notes, get your notes onto one notecard.

• Brevity is the soul of wit. No one is going to remember sixty word sentences. Since you are striving to be memorable, make sure to pepper your speech with short, punchy lines. You don’t want to sound like a limerick, but you do want to use alliteration, assonance, and rhythm to your advantage.
• For example, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” contains only nine unique words, with seven examples of alliteration.

Community Q&A

You Might Also Like

• ↑ Lynn Kirkham. Public Speaking Coach. Expert Interview. 20 November 2019.
• ↑ https://www.conversationagent.com/2018/04/writing-for-listening.html
• ↑ https://www.write-out-loud.com/student-council-speeches.html
• ↑ https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/what-makes-a-great-political-speech
• ↑ https://www.european-rhetoric.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modes-persuasion-aristotle/
• ↑ https://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_effects_of_anger_sadness_and_happiness_on_persuasive_message_processing-a_test_of_the_negative_state_relief_model.pdf

About This Article

If you’re writing a campaign speech, first outline a beginning that catches people’s attention and raises questions, a middle that provides answers, and an end that connects the answers back to the questions. Then, when you write, open by using a story, a joke, or a challenge to make your main point immediately. Use a mixture of facts, feelings, and actions to support your theme through the middle of the speech. Finally, write a conclusion that makes it clear what’s at stake, using strong, forceful language to convey your position. For more tips on writing a campaign speech, including writing a political stump speech, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Oct 11, 2021

Did this article help you?

Sep 20, 2016

Apr 9, 2016

Nov 8, 2016

Sep 30, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

At Morehouse, Biden says dissent should be heard because democracy is 'still the way'

Stephen Fowler

Jeongyoon Han

President Biden speaks to graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement Sunday in Atlanta. Alex Brandon/AP hide caption

President Biden speaks to graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement Sunday in Atlanta.

President Biden told Morehouse College's graduating class of 2024 that he's committed to serving Black voters while defending freedom and democracy in the face of "extremist forces" that he says threaten the soul of the nation.

With just six months until the general election, the speech, which was filled with religious themes of struggle and resilience, also served as a continuation of Biden's warning to his supporters of what he thinks the country would look like if Donald Trump is elected again.

"They don't see you in the future of America, but they're wrong," he said. "To me, we make history, not erase it. We know Black history is American history."

The president's commencement address at Morehouse, a historically Black school in Atlanta, also comes as polling shows potentially lower support for his reelection efforts among Black voters and young voters, and as campus protests over conflict in Gaza have disrupted graduations around the country.

Biden said he understood angst over the direction of the country, acknowledged "dissent about America's role in the world" and said that those who have different views should have their voices heard in the name of democracy.

"That's my commitment to you," he said. "To show you: democracy, democracy democracy — it's still the way."

Graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement bow their heads Sunday in Atlanta. President Biden addressed the graduating class of 2024 and warned about "extremist forces" he says threaten the soul of the nation. Alex Brandon/AP hide caption

Graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement bow their heads Sunday in Atlanta. President Biden addressed the graduating class of 2024 and warned about "extremist forces" he says threaten the soul of the nation.

His speech is also one of many events on his recent trip aimed at speaking to Black voters, following events with plaintiffs in the historic Brown v. Board Supreme Court case, meetings with Black Greek Letter Organizations, often known as the Divine Nine, and before he headlines an NAACP dinner in Detroit.

For weeks, several college and university campuses around the country have been roiled with student protests and encampments expressing opposition against Biden and U.S. policies and involvement around conflict in Gaza.

Biden will cap off a week of outreach to Black Americans with Morehouse commencement

Biden is set for the Morehouse graduation. Students are divided

Morehouse has seen student demonstrations, but not occupation of campus spaces or clashes with law enforcement. Outside of the ceremony, a small number of protesters gathered while the commencement itself did not see any major disruptions.

Last week, Morehouse College President David Thomas said he would rather halt proceedings than have students escorted away for protesting.

"If my choice is 20 people being arrested on national TV on the Morehouse campus, taken away in zip ties during our commencement, before we would reach that point, I would conclude the ceremony," he said on NPR's Weekend Edition .

An attendee stands in protest with their back to President Biden as Biden speaks to graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement Sunday in Atlanta. John Bazemore/AP hide caption

An attendee stands in protest with their back to President Biden as Biden speaks to graduating students at the Morehouse College commencement Sunday in Atlanta.

Those concerns did not come to pass. Apart from the heightened security and increased media presence, Biden's speech was met with a similar response to a typical college graduation ceremony.

More than 400 graduating students walked across the stage Sunday, and during Biden's speech a handful of students, some wearing keffiyehs , turned their chairs around to face away from the president.

After the ceremony, Morehouse issued a statement praising the graduating class and their intentionally muted response to Biden.

"It is fitting that a moment of organized, peaceful activism would occur on our campus while the world is watching to continue a critical conversation," the statement reads. "We are proud of the resilient class of 2024's unity in silent protest, showing their intentionality in strategy, communication, and coordination as a 414-person unit."

DeAngelo Fletcher, Morehouse College's valedictorian, closed his address to his classmates by addressing global conflict, particularly the Israel-Hamas war.

"For the first time in our lives, we've heard the global community sing one harmonious song that transcends language and culture," he said. "It is my sense as a Morehouse Man, nay — as a human being — to call for an immediate and a permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip."

Biden's speech at Morehouse comes with intense scrutiny as many presidential horse race polls show the president lagging with young voters, Black voters and other nonwhite groups that helped propel him to a narrow victory against Trump in 2020.

Those polls — for now — signal a drop in support for Biden but not necessarily an equal shift toward Trump. There are also signs that some of the displeasure with Biden is more pronounced among people who aren't as likely to vote in November.

While facing a nominal challenge in the Democratic presidential primary, Biden's best-performing areas have often come in places with a large share of Black voters. For example, in Georgia's primary contest 95% of Black voters pulled a Democratic ballot, and Biden won 95% of the overall vote.

While some students, faculty and alumni expressed opposition to Biden's selection as the commencement speaker, reaction on campus during the graduation ceremony was largely positive.

Dr. Tiffany Johnson, a 50-year-old who came to the campus green at 4:30 a.m. to see her son graduate, was also excited to see Biden.

"He is the leader of the free world, the most important job in the world, and for him to come to speak to [Morehouse] graduates, to inspire them, is phenomenal," Johnson said.

Johnson said Black voters who might not support Biden are part of a "bandwagon" that do not understand what he has done for the community, and said his speech would be an ideal opportunity to share his accomplishments.

In the speech, Biden touted a track record that he says makes key investments in Black communities, including a record $16 billion funding package toward historically Black colleges and universities, protecting voting rights, and creating economic policies that strengthens Black businesses.

• commencement address
• graduation ceremony
• morehouse college
• young voters
• Donald Trump
• black voters

Peer Reviewed

US-skepticism and transnational conspiracy in the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election

Article metrics.

CrossRef Citations

Altmetric Score

PDF Downloads

Taiwan has one of the highest freedom of speech indexes while it also encounters the largest amount of foreign interference due to its contentious history with China. Because of the large influx of misinformation, Taiwan has taken a public crowdsourcing approach to combatting misinformation, using both fact-checking ChatBots and public dataset called CoFacts. Combining CoFacts with large-language models (LLM), we investigated misinformation across three platforms (Line, PTT, and Facebook) during the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election. We found that most misinformation appears within China-friendly political groups and attacks US-Taiwan relations through visual media like images and videos. A considerable proportion of misinformation does not question U.S. foreign policy directly. Rather, it exaggerates domestic issues in the United States to create a sense of declining U.S. state capacity. Curiously, we found misinformation rhetoric that references conspiracy groups in the West.

Program in Quantitative Social Science, Dartmouth College, USA

Department of Political Science, University of Nevada Las Vegas, USA

Department of Computer Science, Barnard College, USA

Research Questions

• What are the misinformation narratives surrounding the election in Taiwan and how do they target international relations with the United States?
• What geographical or temporal patterns emerge from misinformation data?
• Who are the targets of these misinformation narratives and through what modalities?

Essay Summary

• We leveraged a dataset of 41,291 labeled articles from Line, 911,510 posts from Facebook, and 2,005,972 posts and comments from PTT to understand misinformation dynamics through topic modeling and network analysis.
• The primary form of misinformation is narratives that attack international relations with the United States (henceforth referred to as US-skepticism), specifically referencing the economy, health policy, the threat of war through Ukraine, and other U.S. domestic issues.
• Temporal and spatial evidence suggests VPN-based coordination, focused on U.S. issues and addresses.
• Misinformation is most common among pan-Blue and ROC identity groups on social media and is spread through visual media. These groups share many themes with conspiracy groups in Western countries.
• Our study shows the prevalence of misinformation strategies using visual media and fake news websites. It also highlights how crowdsourcing and advances in large-language models can be used to identify misinformation in cross-platform workflows.

Implications

According to Freedom House, Taiwan has one of the highest indices for free speech in Asia (Freedom House, 2022). Additionally, due to its contentious history with China, it receives significant foreign interference and misinformation, especially during its presidential elections. Due to the large influx of dis- and misinformation, Taiwan has developed many strategies to counter misleading narratives, including fact-checking ChatBots on its most popular chatroom app (Chang et al., 2020). Under this information environment, the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election emerged as one of the most divisive elections in Taiwan’s history, featuring at one point a doubling of presidential candidates in a typically two-party race, from two to four. As such, Taiwan is regarded as a “canary for disinformation” against elections in 2024, as a first indicator to how foreign interference may take place in other democracies (Welch, 2024).

In this paper, we study the misinformation ecosystem in Taiwan starting a year prior to the election. First, our findings highlight the interaction between misinformation and international relations. As was reported in The Economist and The New York Times , a considerable portion of the misinformation spread in Taiwan before the 2024 election is about US-skepticism, which aims at undermining the reputation of the United States among Taiwanese people (“China is flooding Taiwan with disinformation,” 2023; Hsu, Chien, and Myers, 2023). This phenomenon is significant because it does not target specific candidates or parties in the election but may indirectly influence the vote choice between pro- and anti-U.S. parties. Given the US-China global competition and the Russia-Ukraine ongoing conflict, the reputation of the United States is crucial for the strength and reliability of democratic allies (Cohen, 2003). Hence, it is not surprising that misinformation about the United States may propagate globally and influence elections across democracies. However, our findings surprisingly show that US-skepticism also includes a considerable number of attacks on U.S. domestic politics. Such content does not question the U.S. foreign policy but undermines the perceived reliability and state capacity of the United States. Here, s tate capacity is defined as whether a state is capable of mobilizing its resources to realize its goal, which is conceptually different from motivation and trust.

US-skepticism is commonly characterized as mistrusting the motivations of the United States, as illustrated in the Latin American context due to long histories of political influence (see dependency theory; Galeano, 1997), but our findings suggest that perceived U.S. state capacity is also an important narrative. As most foreign disinformation arises from China, this indicates a greater trend where authoritarian countries turn to sharp power tactics to distort information and defame global competitors rather than winning hearts and minds through soft power. Sharp power refers to the ways in which authoritarian regimes project their influence abroad to pierce, penetrate, or perforate the informational environments in targeted countries (Walker, 2018). In Taiwan’s case, China may not be able to tell China’s story well, but can still influence Taiwanese voters by making them believe that the United States is declining. Our findings suggest that future work analyzing the topics and keywords of misinformation in elections outside the United States should also consider the US-skepticism as one latent category, not just the politicians and countries as is common with electoral misinformation (Tenove et al., 2018). These findings are corroborated by narratives identified by a recent report including drug issues, race relations, and urban decay (Microsoft Threat Intelligence, 2024).

Additionally, our research investigates both misinformation and conspiracy theories, which are closely related. Whereas misinformation is broadly described as “false or inaccurate information” (Jerit & Zhao, 2020), a conspiracy theory is the belief that harmful events are caused by a powerful, often secretive, group. In particular, conspiracy communities often coalesce around activities of “truth-seeking,” embodying a contrarian view toward commonly held beliefs (Enders et al., 2022; Harambam, 2020; Konkes & Lester, 2017). Our findings also provide evidence of transnational similarities between conspiracy groups in Taiwan and the United States. Whereas the domestic context has been explored (Chen et al., 2023; Jerit & Zhao, 2020), the intersection of partisanship and conspiracy groups as conduits for cross-national misinformation flow deserves further investigation.

Second, our findings reemphasize that an IP address is not a reliable criterion for attributing foreign intervention.  Previous studies on Chinese cyber armies show that they use a VPN for their activities on Twitter (now X) (Wang et al., 2020) and Facebook (Frenkel, 2023). Commonly known as the Reddit of Taiwan, PTT is a public forum in Taiwan that by default contains the IP address of the poster. Our analysis of PTT located a group of accounts with US IP addresses that have the same activity pattern as other Taiwan-based accounts. Therefore, it is likely that these accounts use VPN to hide their geolocation. Our results provide additional evidence that this VPN strategy also appears on secondary and localized social media platforms. Our results suggest that the analysis of the originating location of misinformation should not be based entirely on IP addresses.

Third, our findings show that text is far from the only format used in the spread of misinformation. A considerable amount of misinformation identified on Facebook is spread through links (47%), videos (21%), and photos (15%). These items may echo each other’s content or even feature cross-platform flow. Proper tools are needed to extract and juxtapose content from different types of media so that researchers can have a holistic analysis of the spread and development of misinformation (Tucker et al., 2018). Such tools are urgent since mainstream social media has adopted and highly encouraged short videos—a crucial area for researchers to assess how misinformation spreads across platforms in the upcoming year of elections. This understanding is also important for fact-check agencies because they must prepare for collecting and reviewing information on various topics found in multiple media types across platforms. Crowdsourcing, data science, expert inputs, and international collaboration are all needed to deal with multi-format misinformation environments.

With prior studies showing that the aggregated fact checks (known as wisdom of the crowds) perform on par with expert ratings (see Arechar et al., 2023; Martel et al., 2023), our case study also evidences how crowdsourcing and LLM approaches can not only quickly fact-check but also summarize larger narrative trends. In Taiwan, this takes form of the CoFacts open dataset, which we use to identify misinformation narratives. CoFacts is a project initiated by g0v (pronounced “gov zero”), a civic hacktivism community in Taiwan that started in 2012. CoFacts started as a fact-checking ChatBot that circumvents the closed nature of chatroom apps, where users can forward suspicious messages or integrate the ChatBot into private rooms. These narratives are then sent to a database. Individual narratives are subsequently reviewed by more than 2,000 volunteers, including teachers, doctors, students, engineers, and retirees (Haime, 2022). As a citizen-initiated project, it is not affiliated with any government entity or party.

Crucially, these reviews provide valuable labels that are used to train AI models and fine-tune LLMs. The dataset is available open source on the popular deep-learning platform HuggingFace. Just as AI and automation can be used to spread misinformation (Chang, 2023; Chang & Ferrara, 2022; Ferrara et al., 2020; Monaco & Woolley, 2022), it can also help combat “fake news” through human-AI collaboration.

Finding 1: The primary form of misinformation  is narratives that attack international relations with the United States (henceforth referred to as US-skepticism), specifically referencing the economy, health policy, the threat of war through Ukraine, and other U.S. domestic issues.

The status quo between China and Taiwan is marked by Taiwan’s self-identification as a sovereign state, which is in contrast to China’s view of Taiwan as part of its territory under the “One China” policy. As brief context, China has claimed Taiwan as its territory since 1949, but the United States has helped maintain the status quo and peace after the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. After democratization in 1987, Taiwan’s politics have been dominated by a clear blue-green division. The blue camp is led by Kuomintang (Nationalist Party, KMT hereafter), the founding party of the Republic of China (ROC, the formal name of Taiwan’s government based on its constitution) who was defeated by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and retreated to Taiwan in 1949. The green camp is led by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which pursues revising the ROC Constitution and changing the country’s name to Taiwan. The political cleavage between the blue and green camps is dictated by Taiwan’s relationship with the PRC and the United States. The blue camp’s position is that the PRC and ROC are under civil war but belong to the same Chinese nation, and thus the blue camp appreciates military support from the United States while enhancing economic and cultural cooperation with the PRC. The green camp believes that the necessary conditions for Taiwan to be free and independent are to stand firmly with the United States and maintain distance from the PRC. After 2020, the two major camps’ insufficient attention to domestic and social issues caused the rise of nonpartisans and a third party, the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP or the white camp), which strategically avoids discussing foreign policies. In the 2024 election, the ruling DPP party (green) was reelected with 40% of votes for the third consecutive presidency (from 2016 to 2028), while KMT (blue) and TPP (white) received 33% and 26% of votes, respectively.

The U.S. “One China” policy since 1979 indicates that the United States opposes any change to the status quo unless it is solved peacefully. This has motivated the PRC to persuade Taiwanese citizens to support unification using misinformation targeted at China-friendly political groups, as the cost of unification would be greatly reduced if sufficient Taiwanese citizens opposed U.S. military intervention. This history between the United States and Taiwan serves as the foundation of US-skepticism. In the literature, US-skepticism in Taiwan is composed of two key psychological elements: trust and motivation (Wu & Lin, 2019; Wu, 2023). First, many Taiwanese no longer trust the United States after the United States switched diplomatic ties from Taiwan (ROC) to the PRC in 1979. Many blue-camp supporters doubt the commitment of the United States to send troops should China invade, per the Taiwan Relations Act (Wu & Lin, 2019). Second, Taiwanese citizens question Taiwan’s role as a proxy in a potential war with China instead of sincerely protecting democracy and human rights in Taiwan (Wu, 2023).

The CoFacts dataset contains 140,314 articles submitted by Line users, which are then fact-checked by volunteers as rumor (47%), not a rumor (21%), not an article (19%), and opinion (13%). Here, rumor is synonymous with misinformation. Using the CoFacts dataset, we trained a BERTopic model to identify 34 forms of misinformation and then ranked them by their overlap with the word “elections” in Mandarin Chinese (George & Sumathy, 2023; Nguyen et al., 2020). Table 1 shows the top nine narratives.

Many of these narratives are directly related to political parties or the democratic process. For instance, the highest-ranked topic is attacking the incumbent party (the DPP) at 18.1%, which contains 2,371 total posts. The subsequent misinformation topics focus on policy issues and specific narratives—international relations, issues of marriage and birth rate, vaccines, nuclear energy, biometrics, egg imports, and the war in Ukraine. These are known cleavage issues and overlap with the eight central concerns during the election cycle—economic prosperity, cross-strait affairs, wealth distribution, political corruption, national security, social reform/stability, and environmental protection (Achen & Wang, 2017; Achen & Wang, 2019; Chang & Fang, 2023).

We focus on the third type of misinformation, which is the relationship between Taiwan, the United States, and China. US-skepticism is not only the largest at 10,826 individual posts, but one flagged by journalists, policymakers, and politicians as one of the most crucial themes. This is a relatively new phenomenon in terms of proportion, which aims to sow distrust toward the United States (“China is flooding Taiwan with disinformation,” 2023). In contrast, questioning the fairness of process (i.e. ballot numbers) and policy positions (i.e. gay marriage) are common during elections. However, US-skeptical misinformation diverges in that there is no explicit political candidate or party targeted. By sampling the topic articles within this category and validating using an LLM-summarizer through the ChatGPT API, we identified three specific narratives:

(a) The United States and the threat of war: Ukraine intersects frequently in this topic, with videos of direct military actions. Example: “Did you hear former USA military strategist Jack Keane say the Ukrainian war is an investment. The USA spends just $66,000,000,000 and can make Ukraine and Russia fight…  Keane then mentions Taiwan is the same, where Taiwanese citizens are an ‘investment’ for Americans to fight a cheap war. The USA is cold and calculating, without any actual intent to help Taiwan!”

(b) Economic atrophy due to fiscal actions by the United States: These narratives focus on domestic policy issues in Taiwan such as minimum wage and housing costs. Example: “The USA printed 4 trillion dollars and bought stocks everywhere in the world, including Taiwan, and caused inflation and depressed wages. Be prepared!”

(c) Vaccine supply and the United States: While some narratives focus on the efficacy of vaccines, several describe the United States intentionally limiting supply during the pandemic. Example: “Taiwanese Dr. Lin is a leading scientist at Moderna, yet sells domestically at $39 per two doses, $50 to Israel. Taiwan must bid at least $60! The United States clearly does not value Taiwan.”

These narratives reveal a new element to US-skepticism: state capacity. As previously mentioned, state capacity is defined as whether a state is capable of mobilizing its resources to realize its goal. The Ukraine war and vaccine supply narratives both question the United States’ motivations in foreign policies and perceived trustworthiness. Meanwhile, the economic atrophy narrative is based on the United States’ domestic budgetary deficit and downstream impact on Taiwanese economy. These narratives frame U.S. state capacity as declining and imply that the United States could no longer realize any other commitment due to its lack of resources and capacity. The goal of such a narrative is to lower the Taiwanese audience’s belief that the United States will help. But such a narrative does not include keywords of its target group (e.g., Taiwan) nor the PCR’s goal (e.g., unification) and only works through framing and priming as an example of sharp power. 

The specific focus of misinformation narratives related to the United States is composed of Ukraine (28.8%), the economy and fiscal policies (33.1%), technology (25.2%), and vaccine supply (9.9%). Misinformation related to state capacity takes up approximately 52.4%, more than half of all narratives (see Figure A1, part a in the Appendix). In all narratives, political parties are only referenced 27.8% of the time with the DPP the primary target (26.2%), which is almost half of the proportion for state capacity. China is only mentioned in tandem with the United States in 38.4% of the posts (see Figure A1, part b in the Appendix).

Finding 2: Temporal and spatial evidence suggests VPN-based coordination, focused on U.S. issues and addresses.

Once we identified the top misinformation narratives using Line, we investigated information operations or coordination. Line is one of Taiwan’s most popular communication apps featuring chatrooms (similar to WhatsApp), with 83% usage. One limitation of Line is that although we can analyze message content, Line chatrooms can be seen as conversations behind “closed doors”—platforms cannot impose content moderation and researchers have no access to the users themselves nor to the private chatroom in which users engage with misinformation (Chang et al., 2020). PTT, on the other hand, provides a public forum-like environment in which users can interact. Figure 1 shows the co-occurrence network of users who post comments under the same forum. Each circle (node) represents a user who posts on PTT. If two users make mutual comments on more than 200 posts, then they are connected (form a tie). Intuitively, this means if two users are connected or “close” to each other by mutual connections, then they are likely coordinating or have extremely similar behaviors. The placement of the users reflects this and is determined by their connections.

Using the Louvain algorithm (Traag, 2015), a common method to identify communities on social networks, five communities emerged from our dataset. Each community is colored separately, with clear clusters, except for teal which is more integrated. In particular, the yellow cluster is significantly separate from the others. This means they share significant activity amongst their own community, but less so with other communities. This suggests premeditated coordination rather than organic discussion, as the users would have to target the same post with high frequency. Prior studies have shown analyzing temporal patterns can provide insight into information operations. Specifically, overseas content farms often follow a regular cadence, posting content before peak hours in Taiwan on Twitter (Wang et al., 2020) and YouTube (Hsu & Lin, 2023).

To better understand the temporal dynamics on PTT, we plotted the distribution of posts and comments over a 24-hour period. Specifically, we focused on the top two countries by volume—Taiwan and the United States. Figure 2, part a shows the time of posting. Taiwan’s activity increases from 6 in the morning until it peaks at noon (when people are on lunch break), then steadily declines into the night. In contrast, posts from the United States peak at midnight and 8 a.m. Taipei time, which corresponds to around noon and 8 p.m. in New York, respectively. This provides an organic baseline as to when we might expect people to post.

However, in Figure 2, part b, while the distribution for Taiwan (blue) remains unchanged, the peak for the United States (orange) occurs at the same time as Taiwan. One explanation is that users are responding to posts in Taiwan. The second is that users in Asia—potentially China—are using a VPN to appear as if they are in the United States. This coincides with a report by Meta Platforms that found large numbers of CCP-operated Facebook accounts and subsequently removed them (Frenkel, 2023).

The more curious issue is when considering the activity of the yellow group from Figure 1, the temporal pattern (green) shows a sharp increase in activity at 10 a.m., which then coincides with both the peaks for Taiwan (12) and the United States (22). The sudden burst of activity is consistent with prior findings on content farms from China, where posting behavior occurs when content farm workers clock in regularly for work (Wang et al., 2020). While it is difficult to prove the authenticity of these accounts, the structural and temporal aspects suggest coordination. Figure A2 in the appendix shows further evidence of coordination through the frequency distribution of counts for co-occurring posts. For the US-based group, a distribution akin to a power law appears, commonly found within social systems (Adamic & Huberman, 2000; Chang et al., 2023; Clauset et al., 2009). In contrast, the coordinated group features a significantly heavier tail, with a secondary, “unnatural,” peak at around 15 co-occurrences.

To better understand the content of these groups, Table A1 shows the summary of comments of each group and the originating post, using a large-language model for abstractive summarization (see Methods). We report the top points for comments and posts in Table A1. The coordinated community focuses on businessman Terry Gou, who considered running as a blue-leaning independent. The comments attack the incumbent DPP and their stance toward foreign policy. One popular post features President Tsai’s controversial meeting with Kevin McCarthy, then the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. When a journalist asked McCarthy if he would “invite President Tsai to Congress… or… Washington,” McCarthy replied, “I don’t have any invitation out there right now. Today we were able to meet her as she transits through America, I thought that was very productive.” While this was positively framed, the title of the post itself was translated as “McCarthy will not invite Tsai to the United States” (Doomdied, 2023). This takes on a common tactic in misinformation where statements are intentionally distorted to produce negative framings of a particular candidate.

Comments from U.S. IP addresses between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. focus on the potential alliance between the KMT and TPP. These posts are KMT-leaning with criticism toward both Lai and Ko, who are two oppositional candidates to the KMT. Some users argue that while the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is a negative force, the United States is not automatically a positive force, as the United States does not explicitly support Taiwan’s international recognition or economic integration. In general, both posts and comments express that Taiwan should not rely too heavily on either China or the United States. This echoes the element of trust in the US-skepticism from the historical experience between ROC and the United States.

Both the U.S.-based and coordinated groups appear as blue-leaning audiences. What differentiates the first and second case is clear evidence of misinformation in the former through inaccurate framing. While US-skepticism may be a valid political stance, if the ambient information environment contains inaccurate information, then the democratic deliberative process is at risk. The case of US-skepticism is also one where stance and truth-value are often conflated, which may influence the process of voter deliberation.

Finding 3: Misinformation is most common among pan-Blue and ROC identity groups on social media and is spread through visual media. These groups share themes with conspiracy groups in Western countries.

Lastly, we considered the groups in which misinformation is common and the way misinformation is delivered. To do so, we queried CrowdTangle using the titles and links from the CoFacts dataset specific to US-Taiwan relations. This yielded 4,632 posts from public groups. Table 2 shows the groups ranked by the total number of misinformation articles identified.

There are two themes to these groups. First, they are often pan-Blue media outlets ( CTI News ), politician support groups ( Wang Yo-Zeng Support Group ), and ROC national identity groups ( I’m an ROC Fan ). The second type is somewhat unexpected but extremely interesting; it consists of groups that espouse freedom of speech ( Support CTI News and Free Speech ) and truth-seeking ( Truth Engineering Taiwan Graduate School ), topics often regarded as conspiracies. These topics are reminiscent of those in the West, such as the rhetoric around “fake news” and “truthers,” and paint a transnational picture of how misinformation coalesces. The second largest group is Trump for the World , which supports a politician known to court conspiracy theory groups such as QAnon. These groups also serve as the “capacity” element of US-skepticism, implying that the United States is in trouble for its domestic issues and is not a reliable partner to Taiwan. Furthermore, these groups have sizable followings—ranging from 8,279 to 43,481. We show the mean, as the total number of members fluctuated over our one-year period.

Lastly, we found that the majority of misinformation contains some form of multimedia, such as video (36%) or photos (15%), as shown in Figure 3, part a. Only 1% is a direct status. This may be due to CrowdTangle not surfacing results from normal users, but the ratio of multimedia to text is quite high. This aligns with extant studies showing the growth of multimodal misinformation (Micallef et al., 2022) and also user behavior in algorithm optimization (Chang et al., 2022; Dhanesh et al., 2022; Pulley, 2020)—posts with multimedia tend to do better than posts with only text.

Moreover, 47% contain a URL. Figure 3, part b shows one of the top domains containing misinformation (beyondnews852.com) after filtering out common domains such as YouTube. The site is named “Beyond News Net” and is visually formatted like a legitimate news site to increase the perceived credibility of information (Flanagin & Metzger, 2007; Wölker & Powell, 2021). The ability to rapidly generate legitimate-looking news sites as a tactic for misinformation may become a challenge for both media literacy and technical approaches to fight misinformation.

We utilized three unique misinformation datasets—Line, Facebook, and PTT—with dates between 01/12/2023 and 11/10/2023. The CoFacts dataset includes 140,193 received messages, 96,432 that have been labeled as misinformation, facts, opinion, or not relevant. Of this, 41,564 entries are misinformation. The CoFacts dataset is not only methodologically useful but exemplifies a crowd-sourced approach to fact-checking misinformation as an actual platform intervention. Moreover, it is public and transparent, allowing for replicability. Using a subset of articles and posts containing misinformation, we trained a topic model using BERTopic (Grootendorst, 2022). On a high level, using BERTopic involves five steps: 1) extract embeddings using a sentence transformer, 2) reduce dimensionality, 3) cluster reduced embeddings, 4) tokenize topics, and 5) create topic representation.

We conducted several trials, experimenting with parameters such as different sentence transformer models and minimum cluster sizes for the HDBSCAN clustering algorithm. The model used to extract topics for this paper utilized paraphrase-multilingual-MiniLM-L12-v2 for our sentence embedding model (Reimers & Gurevych, 2019), had a minimum cluster size of 80 for the clustering algorithm, and used tokenize_zh for our tokenizer. Our model yielded 34 topics. We also trained a model based on latent-Dirichlet allocation (LDA) (Blei et al., 2003), but found the BERTopic results to be more interpretable. We then labeled all messages to indicate whether they included reference to the election or not, and ranked the topics by their election-related percentage to measure electoral salience. For our subsequent analysis, we focused on topic 3 (see Table 1), which captures general discourse about the relations between the United States, China, and Taiwan.

The Facebook dataset was extracted using CrowdTangle. We queried posts containing links and headlines from topic 3. We also cross-sectioned these links and headlines with a general election-based dataset with 911,510 posts. This yielded a total of 4,632 of posts shared on public Facebook groups and 227,125 engagements. Due to privacy concerns, it is not possible to obtain private posts from users on their own Facebook timelines, private groups, or messages. However, public groups are a good proxy for general discourse, in addition to providing ethnic or partisan affiliations via their group name (Chang & Fang, 2023). In other words, while CoFacts provides the misinformation narratives, Facebook public groups give insight into the targets of misinformation.

Lastly, we scraped PTT using Selenium. Commonly known as the Reddit of Taiwan, PTT is unique in that it contains the IP address of the poster, though this could be shrouded by proxy farms or VPNs. First, we scraped all posts that contained reference to the United States and the election, which yielded 22,576 posts and 1,983,396 comments, all with IP addresses, addresses provided by PTT, and the time of posting. We expanded the scope of this analysis as we were interested in the general discourse directly related to the United States, and the geospatial and temporal patterns that arose. 

Due to the large amount of data, there are three general approaches we could have taken—local extractive summarization with LLMs, local abstractive summarization with LLMs, and server-based abstractive summarization (such as ChatGPT). Local extractive summarization is a method that embeds each of the input sentences and then outputs five of the most representative sentences. However, this approach is often too coarse, as it returns sentences with the highest centrality but does not summarize general themes across all the different comments or posts. On the other hand, abstractive summarization works by considering the entire context by ingesting many documents and then summarizing across them. This provides a more generalized characterization of key themes. However, the input size is the primary bottleneck as large-language models can only ingest so many tokens (or words), which also need to be held in memory—the case for our project, as we are summarizing more than 10,000 posts.

To circumvent these issues, we sampled the maximum number of posts or comments that could fit within 16,000 tokens and then made a query call using the ChatGPT API. This provided a summary based on a probabilistic sample of the posts and comments.

• / Elections

Cite this Essay

Chang, H. C. H., Wang, A. H. E., & Fang Y. S. (2024). US-skepticism and transnational conspiracy in the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-144

Bibliography

Achen, C. H., & Wang, T. Y. (2017). The Taiwan voter . University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9375036

Achen, C. H., & Wang, T. Y. (2019). Declining voter turnout in Taiwan: A generational effect? Electoral Studies , 58 , 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.12.011

Adamic, L. A., & Huberman, B. A. (2000). Power-law distribution of the World Wide Web. Science, 287 (5461), 2115–2115. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.287.5461.2115a

Arechar, A. A., Allen, J., Berinsky, A. J., Cole, R., Epstein, Z., Garimella, K., Gully, A., Lu, J. G., Ross, R. M., Stagnaro, M. N., Zhang, Y., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2023). Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents. Nature Human Behaviour , 7 (9), 1502–1513. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01641-6

Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/944919.944937

Chang, H.-C. H. (2023). Nick Monaco and Samuel Woolley, Bots. [Review of the book Bots , by N. Monaco, & S. Woolley]. International Journal of Communication ,  17 , 3.

Chang, H.-C. H., & Fang, Y. S. (2024). The 2024 Taiwanese Presidential Election on social media: Identity, policy, and affective virality. PNAS Nexus, 3 (4). https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae130

Chang, H.-C. H., & Ferrara, E. (2022). Comparative analysis of social bots and humans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Computational Social Science , 5, 1409–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-022-00173-9

Chang, H.-C. H., Haider, S., & Ferrara, E. (2021). Digital civic participation and misinformation during the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. Media and Communication, 9 (1), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3405

Chang, H.-C. H., Harrington, B., Fu, F., & Rockmore, D. N. (2023). Complex systems of secrecy: The offshore networks of oligarchs. PNAS Nexus, 2 (4), pgad051. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad112

Chang, H.-C. H., Richardson, A., & Ferrara, E. (2022). #JusticeforGeorgeFloyd: How Instagram facilitated the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. PLOS ONE , 17 (12), e0277864. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277864

China is flooding Taiwan with disinformation. (2023, September 26). The Economist . https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/09/26/china-is-flooding-taiwan-with-disinformation

Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51 (4), 661–703. https://doi.org/10.1137/070710111

Dhanesh, G., Duthler, G., & Li, K. (2022). Social media engagement with organization-generated content: Role of visuals in enhancing public engagement with organizations on Facebook and Instagram. Public Relations Review , 48 (2), 102174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102174

Doomdied. (2023, April 6). [Hot Gossip] McCarthy: Will not invite President Tsai to congress or DC . PTT. https://disp.cc/b/Gossiping/fXNG

Enders, A., Farhart, C., Miller, J., Uscinski, J., Saunders, K., & Drochon, H. (2022). Are Republicans and conservatives more likely to believe conspiracy theories? Political Behavior , 45 , 2001–2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09812-3

Ferrara, E., Chang, H., Chen, E., Muric, G., & Patel, J. (2020). Characterizing social media manipulation in the 2020 US presidential election. First Monday, 25 (11). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i11.11431

Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society , 9 (2), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015

Freedom House (2022). Freedom index by country. https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores

Frenkel, S. (2023, August 29). Meta’s “biggest single takedown” removes Chinese influence campaign. The New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/29/technology/meta-china-influence-campaign.html

Galeano, E. H., & Galeano, E. (1997). Open veins of Latin America: Five centuries of the pillage of a continent. NYU Press.

George, L., & Sumathy, P. (2023). An integrated clustering and BERT framework for improved topic modeling. International Journal of Information Technology , 15 (4), 2187–2195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41870-023-01268-w

Grootendorst, M. (2022). BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.05794

Haime, J. (2022, September 19). Taiwan’s amateur fact-checkers wage war on fake news from China. Al Jazeera . https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/9/19/taiwan

Harambam, J. (2020). Contemporary conspiracy culture: Truth and knowledge in an era of epistemic instability . Routledge.

Hsu, L.-Y., & Lin, S.-H. (2023). Party identification and YouTube usage patterns: An exploratory analysis. Taiwan Politics. https://taiwanpolitics.org/article/88117-party-identification-and-youtube-usage-patterns-an-exploratory-analysis

Hsu, T., Chien, A. C., & Myers, S. L. (2023, November 26). Can Taiwan continue to fight off Chinese disinformation? The New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/26/business/media/taiwan-china-disinformation.html

Jerit, J., & Zhao, Y. (2020). Political misinformation. Annual Review of Political Science , 23 (1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814

Konkes, C., & Lester, L. (2017). Incomplete knowledge, rumour and truth seeking. Journalism Studies , 18 (7), 826–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1089182

Martel, C., Allen, J., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2023). Crowds can effectively identify misinformation at scale. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19 (2), 316–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231190388

Micallef, N., Sandoval-Castañeda, M., Cohen, A., Ahamad, M., Kumar, S., & Memon, N. (2022). Cross-platform multimodal misinformation: Taxonomy, characteristics and detection for textual posts and videos. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , 16 , 651–662. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19323

Microsoft Threat Intelligence (2024). Same targets, new playbooks: East Asia threat actors employ unique methods. Microsoft Threat Analysis Center. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/security-insider/intelligence-reports/east-asia-threat-actors-employ-unique-methods

Monaco, N., & Woolley, S. (2022). Bots . John Wiley & Sons.

Nguyen, D. Q., Vu, T., & Nguyen, A. T. (2020). BERTweet: A pre-trained language model for English Tweets . arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10200

Pulley, P. G. (2020). Increase engagement and learning: Blend in the visuals, memes, and GIFs for online content. In Emerging Techniques and Applications for Blended Learning in K-20 Classrooms (pp. 137–147). IGI Global.

Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. (2019). Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT-networks . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.10084

Traag, V. A. (2015). Faster unfolding of communities: Speeding up the Louvain algorithm. Physical Review. E, Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics , 92 (3), 032801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.032801

Walker, C. (2018). What Is “Sharp Power”? Journal of Democracy, 29 (3) , 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2018.0041

Wang, A. H.-E., Lee, M.-C., Wu, M.-H., & Shen, P. (2020). Influencing overseas Chinese by tweets: text-images as the key tactic of Chinese propaganda. Journal of Computational Social Science, 3 (2), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs42001-020-00091-8

Welch, D. (2024, January 19). Taiwan’s election: 2024’s canary in the coal mine for disinformation against democracy. Alliance For Securing Democracy. https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/taiwans-election-2024s-canary-in-the-coal-mine-for-disinformation-against-democracy/

Wölker, A., & Powell, T. E. (2021). Algorithms in the newsroom? News readers’ perceived credibility and selection of automated journalism. Journalism , 22 (1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918757072

Wu, A. (2023). To reassure Taiwan and deter China, the United States should learn from history. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 79 (2), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2023.2178174

Wu, C. L., & Lin, A. M. W. (2019). The certainty of uncertainty: Taiwanese public opinion on US–Taiwan relations in the early Trump presidency. World Affairs, 182 (4), 350–369.

No funding has been received to conduct this research.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

No human subjects were included in this study.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.

Data Availability

All materials needed to replicate this study are available via the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5SPGDY . The Cofacts database is available on HuggingFace and Facebook via CrowdTangle per regulation of Meta Platforms.

Acknowledgements

H. C. would like to thank Brendan Nyhan, Sharanya Majumder, John Carey, and Adrian Rauschfleish for their comments. H. C. would like to thank the Dartmouth Burke Research Initiation Award.

All authors contributed equally.

Trump and GOP repeatedly echo Nazi and far-right ideology as they aim to retake White House

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

He’s dined with a white supremacist. He’s invoked theories espoused by Nazis in their quest for racial purity.

His response to white supremacists marching in Charlottesville? There were “very fine people on both sides. “

So this week, when a video on former President Trump’s Truth Social account made reference to a “unified Reich,” his opponents were primed to pounce.

The message of Trump’s post was muddled, according to historians, but it used language most often associated with Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime.

Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said the video had been posted online without the former president’s approval by a junior staffer while Trump was in court. It went up while Trump was on his lunch break.

“This was not a campaign video, it was created by a random account online and reposted by a staffer who clearly did not see the word, while the President was in court,” Leavitt said in a statement to the Associated Press.

You're reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter

Anita Chabria and David Lauter cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know in 2024. In your inbox three times per week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Still, Democrats and even some Republicans asserted that, whatever the intention or cause, the video showed that as Trump seeks to retake the White House, he often cites, invokes or is connected to far-right and Nazi language and imagery.

“If you understand fascism, you have a five-alarm bell going off in your head,” former Trump communications director Anthony Scaramucci said on MSNBC this week.

Scaramucci added that the people raising money for Trump’s campaign — mostly men, not women — “are doing it for superficial personal economic interest. They’re not understanding the full balance of what’s at stake here as it relates to the separation of power in the United States.”

Biden used the “unified Reich” video to repeat a theme he invokes frequently — the dire implications of a second Trump term.

“It is not the first time Trump has gone down this road,” Biden said at a fundraiser in Boston on Tuesday. “Folks, it can’t be any clearer. The threat Trump poses is greater the second time around than it was the first.”

In a video posted on social media Tuesday, Biden is seen watching the Truth Social post video reacting: “That’s Hitler’s language. That’s not America’s. He cares about holding on to power. I care about you.”

The video appeared on Trump’s social media Monday. The clip was ripped from another account and showed fake newspaper headlines saying “Trump Wins! and “What’s next for America?”

But looking closer, the video, which appears to have been made with an online template, includes headlines such as “INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED... DRIVEN BY THE CREATION OF A UNIFIED REICH.”

The text that appears in the video come from a Wikipedia entry on World War I. The unified Reich idea most likely references history that precedes the foundation of the Third Reich, when Hitler came to power in 1933. Still, the term “Reich,” which in German means realm or empire, has become closely associated with Hitler and the massacring of Jews and other minorities.

Trump critics note the Reich reference joins a long string of comments and associations that echo Nazi ideology.

In December, Trump said in a speech that immigrants were “poisoning the blood of the country,” which echoed Hitler’s repeated invocations that Jews were “poisoning” Aryan Germans. Trump, at the time, said he was unaware of the parallel and that he’d never read Hitler’s seminal text “Mein Kampf.”

During the 2020 campaign he seemed to endorse in speeches “racehorse theory” — the idea that selective breeding can improve a country’s performance. This idea was foundational to the Nazi notion of racial purity.

He also called his political opponents “vermin,” a term frequently employed by the Nazis against their opponents. A recent tell-all from journalists Peter Baker and Susan Glasser describes how Trump complained that American military officials weren’t “totally loyal” to him and how he reportedly asked his then-chief of staff, retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly: “Why can’t you be like the German generals?”

Kelly pointed out that Hitler’s generals tried to assassinate him, according to Glasser and Baker.

“Nazism, imperialism, and dictatorship all fly in the face of democracy,” said George Mason professor Tehama Lopez Bunyasi who has studied how race and identity intersect with politics.

“The American people should beware any candidate who does not rebuke these three outright.”

Gavriel D. Rosenfeld, president of the Center for Jewish History, said that Trump’s repeated flirtations with this sort of rhetoric and meetings with people like white nationalist Nick Fuentes condition people to look for the subtlest signs of antisemitism and parallels to Hitler. In 2022, Fuentes had dinner with Trump and rapper Kanye West, who now goes by Ye and who has repeatedly made antisemitic remarks in recent years.

Rosenfeld theorized that the Reich video could be “Gen Z staffers on the Trump team that like smuggling in ‘where’s Waldo’-style far-right icons into official Trump/GOP messaging” as hidden messages for their far-right peers.

It wouldn’t be the first time that happened. Last year, the presidential campaign of Florida Gov . Ron DeSantis fired a staffer who made a video of the governor that invoked Nazi ideology.

Then there are social media posts that come from people not directly connected to campaigns. During the 2020 presidential race, Facebook removed a pro-Trump post that included an upside-down red triangle, which was a symbol Nazis used to tar opponents. The New York Times reported that the anonymous social media user who purportedly made the video had posted several times that its meaning was clear and there was “not a secret hidden message.”

To Rosenfeld, such messaging has become all too common. “We’ve just been conditioned to see signs of fascism everywhere now,” Rosenfeld said, adding that there’s plenty of evidence in his mind that a second Trump term would be the “most right-wing and fanatical and corrupt in our lifetime.”

Thomas Weber, an expert on German history, pointed out that in modern Germany one far-right party has been cribbing wholesale from parts of the Nazi party manifesto.

“The whole bit about blood of the people: That is Nazi language pure and simple,” said Weber, a professor of history and international affairs at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. The Reich video, however, is “more complicated,” he said.

The video imagines that in a second Trump term, there would be low taxes, “no more wars” and the “economy booms.” These themes, Weber said, “don’t resonate with either the message of the Third Reich, nor of Imperial Germany.”

The video says that in a second Trump term, the border would be closed. That’s not a uniquely Nazi idea or Trump view, Weber said, and neither is pushing for the wholesale removal of people deemed not to belong in a country.

Ideas expressed in Hitler’s Germany are appearing, one way or another, in many countries.

“It’s not uniquely Trump who is inadvertently copying Nazi policy, but the same is true for the parties and political leaders across the Western world,” Weber said. “They do not appear to be clear how much they’re ultimately echoing the party platform of the Nazi party.”

More to Read

Trump’s social media account shares a campaign video with a headline about a ‘unified Reich’

May 21, 2024

Biden condemns antisemitism sparked by college protests and Gaza war

May 7, 2024

Trump says Biden is running a ‘Gestapo’ administration. It’s his latest reference to Nazi Germany

May 5, 2024

Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter

Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.

Benjamin Oreskes covers state and national politics for the Los Angeles Times. Previously, he covered City Hall, homelessness and wrote the Essential California newsletter. Before coming to The Times in February 2017, he covered foreign policy at Politico in Washington, D.C.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Voters, worried about inflation, are favoring Trump in swing states, poll shows

May 23, 2024

Litman: Trump’s hush money trial is about to go to the jury. What’s the most likely verdict?

Calmes: Will voters get the message that our judicial system is on the 2024 ballot too?

Meet Arizona’s most powerful political couple, who are on opposite ends of an abortion ban

Election Updates: Trump rallies in the South Bronx.

• Share full article

As the final protesters trickled out, police officers milled about and Donald Trump’s motorcade sped away in the distance, New York City park workers moved in with trash cans and grabbers and began cleaning Crotona Park, the site of the rally. “It’s not too bad,” said one worker between emptying his dust pan filled with trash. “It could be worse.”

Rally participants began streaming out of the Bronx park around 8 p.m. as Donald Trump ended his speech by saying he would “make America great again.” Scherie Murray, a Republican political consultant from Queens, called Trump’s speech “amazing.” “Trump is showing up in communities that Republicans don’t normally show up in,” Murray said.

Michael Gold

Donald Trump acknowledged he wasn’t sure of the reception he might get in deep-blue New York City. “I woke up, I said, I wonder will it be hostile or will it be friendly?” He looked out at the crowd. “It was a love fest!”

Tensions outside the rally have appeared to ease. Police blocked protesters from the entrance to the Trump rally using metal barricades. Many of the anti-Trump protesters across the street from the rally entrance have cleared out.

Donald Trump has made a number of promises during this speech in the Bronx that are the stuff of mayoral campaigns: to improve safety on the subways, to clear homeless encampments and to remove mentally ill people from streets and parks. These are much smaller pledges than the sweeping ones he routinely makes on the trail in swing states.

A huge cheer rang out in this crowd in New York, a sanctuary city that built a reputation as a beacon for immigrants, as Donald Trump pledged to carry out the largest deportation operation in American history.

Separated by two rows of police officers and a street, some pro-Trump protesters are chanting “USA” and telling the anti-Trump protesters to “Go back home.” An officer said the police were lined up to keep the two sides apart and keep everyone safe.

Dozens of New York Police Department officers on bikes and others with plastic handcuffs have lined up in front of the group protesting the rally. Police are pushing people onto the sidewalk.

Donald Trump’s event is essentially in a field inside Crotona Park in the Bronx, so it’s tough to fully gauge crowd size but it appears that more than a thousand people are in the grassy area in front of him, with a significant number still outside waiting to get through the security screening.

Donald Trump repeated a claim he has made before: that he believes many of the Israeli hostages taken by Hamas on Oct. 7 are already dead. Trump, who often says he is the most pro-Israel president in history, has said Israel needs to finish its war quickly and has attacked Biden as being insufficiently supportive.

As Donald Trump began speaking about how he tried to build a wall at the southern border with Mexico while president, the crowd here in the South Bronx, which includes a considerable number of Hispanic immigrants, began chanting, “Build the wall!”

Derick Williams, 67, never thought Donald Trump would visit the Bronx. Williams is a Bronx native, but now lives in Bushwick and arrived to Crotona Park, where Trump is holding a rally tonight, five hours before the event began. He wanted to experience being around other Trump supporters, which he finds rare in New York. Usually, “you’re the thumb in the crowd,” he said. “For once, I feel like the majority.”

A crowd of protesters has sprung up across from the entrance to Trump’s rally. They’re gathered around a sign that reads: “Convict Trump Already!” About 15 police officers are separating the protesters from the rally entrance. There’s music and profane chanting. The occasional Trump supporter wanders over to challenge the crowd.

Donald Trump opened his rally in the Bronx tonight by essentially declaring his love for New York, calling it “the city I helped build and the city we all love.” Citing the hundreds of people cheering in front of him, he asked, “Who said we’re not going to win New York?” The state hasn’t voted for a Republican president since 1980, and Trump lost by double-digit gaps in 2016 and 2020.

Ahead of Donald Trump’s remarks in the Bronx tonight, the Rev. Rubén Díaz Sr., a former Democratic city councilman who opposes abortion rights and has a history of backing Republicans, expressed a sentiment shared by many voters at this rally: “No one has ever come to the Bronx like this. Only Donald Trump.” The borough is not a typical campaign spot for presidential candidates.

Standing outside the Trump rally, Theodore Kelley, 67, a retired truck driver who lives in the neighborhood around Crotona Park was angry that the rally was being held here. “I came to see what it was all about,” Kelley said. “I’m not expecting to see any of my neighbors here because they wouldn’t come to support Trump.”

George Santos, the disgraced former Republican congressman who was expelled from the House last year , is among several notable New York Republicans in attendance at Donald Trump’s rally tonight in the South Bronx.

Ahead of Donald Trump’s rally tonight in the Bronx, a diverse crowd of about 500 people have gathered inside Crotona Park, with at least a thousand more waiting in line to enter. It’s a sea of MAGA hats, which makes the occasional navy blue Yankees cap stand out.

There’s a carnival-like atmosphere outside tonight’s Trump rally in the South Bronx, with a line of people waiting to get in. A Trump impersonator attracted a crowd chanting “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” Vendors are selling MAGA hats and anti-Joe Biden pins.

Chris Cameron

After losing a bruising, expensive Senate primary in Maryland, Representative David Trone endorsed his former opponent, Angela Alsobrooks , at a Democratic Party event today. Trone, who co-owns the country’s largest wine retailer, spent more than $60 million of his personal fortune on his failed Senate campaign.

A poll from Marquette Law School today shows Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at 17 percent support, representing a third poll that meets CNN’s requirements to participate in its debate on June 27. Kennedy needs four approved polls above 15 percent support by June 20. He must also get on the ballot in enough states to have a chance to win 270 electoral college votes. He is currently well below that threshold .

Nikki Haley saying she would vote for Donald J. Trump, after he insulted her husband and her marriage , recalls a similar situation in the 2016 campaign. Senator Ted Cruz, then running against Trump for the Republican nomination, denounced him in fiery exchanges for insulting tweets targeting Cruz’s wife, Heidi. Cruz held out on an endorsement after dropping out, but by October was phone-banking for Trump.

At a Trump rally in the Bronx, chants of ‘Build the wall.’

Miles from the rather somber Manhattan courtroom where he has spent much of the past five weeks as a criminal defendant, former President Donald J. Trump on Thursday stood at a park in the Bronx, surveyed the crowd and acknowledged he had been concerned over how he might be greeted at his first rally in New York State in eight years, and his first ever in the borough.

In front of him was a more diverse crowd than is typical of his rallies, with many Black and Hispanic voters sporting bright red “Make America Great Again” hats and other Trump-themed apparel ordinarily scarce in deep-blue New York City. Still more people stood outside, waiting to get past security.

“I woke up, I said, ‘I wonder, will it be hostile or will it be friendly?’” Mr. Trump said. “It was beyond friendly. It was a love fest.”

As is often the case during Mr. Trump's speeches, the truth was a bit more complex. As he spoke, more than 100 protesters demonstrated outside the fenced-off area of Crotona Park where he had staged the rally. A wave of elected officials denounced his visit to the city. And his insistence that he would carry New York in November — though perhaps not as laughable as it once might have sounded, judging from at least one recent poll — conveniently disregarded the thumping he took in the state in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

But as heated arguments took place outside his rally, Mr. Trump, who veered occasionally into lengthy New York-focused reminiscences that were lost on his supporters, seemed to relish the chance to appear in his hometown, seize media attention and know that New Yorkers would hear what he had to say, like it or not, one way or the other.

Throughout the rally, Mr. Trump, one of New York’s most famous native sons, who formally made Florida his home in 2019, embraced the chance to demonstrate his support in the city he left behind — and which he swore he still loved, even as he decried it as descending into chaos.

“New York was where you came to make it big. You want to make it big, you had to be in New York,” he said. “But sadly, this is now a city in decline.”

His remarks largely followed familiar patterns as he railed against the Biden administration and made explicit overtures to Black and Latino voters. He lamented the surge of migrants across the southern border and criticized President Biden’s economic policies as disproportionately hurting people of color, whose support he is eager to win from Democrats.

“African Americans are getting slaughtered. Hispanic Americans are getting slaughtered,” he said.

He also insisted that the migrant influx, which has prompted a crisis in New York, was disproportionately hurting “our Black population and our Hispanic population, who are losing their jobs, losing their housing, losing everything they can lose.”

Mr. Trump’s screeds against those crossing the border illegally and his vow to conduct the “largest deportation operation” in U.S. history — both staples of his campaign rallies — were met with cheers.

Unprompted, many in the crowd responded by chanting “Build the wall,” a reference to Mr. Trump’s effort during his presidency to build a wall on the southern border, and then, later, “Send them back.”

They did not appear to object to his broad assertion, which has no evidence, that those coming across the border were mentally ill criminals mounting an invasion of the United States.

“They want to get us from within,” Mr. Trump said. “I think they’re building an army.”

The approving reception for such anti-immigrant messaging was particularly striking in New York, a sanctuary city that has over decades built a reputation as a beacon for immigrants.

Some in the crowd said they were immigrants but were quick to clarify that they had crossed the border legally and that they disapproved of those who did not.

“I understand this country is built up of immigrants,” said Indiana Mitchell, 47, who said she was from the Dominican Republic. “But I came to this country in the right way. I didn’t come in through the backyard, I came in through the front door.”

Mr. Trump often discusses how the migrant crisis is playing out in New York during rallies in battleground states, where it remains a more abstract idea to many of his supporters.

But people at his Bronx rally said they had directly seen the impact on their neighborhoods of the surge of migrants, which has strained the municipal budget as the city provides housing and other social services.

Rafael Brito, a Queens resident who said he had come to the United States from the Dominican Republic, said he thought the migrant crisis had exacerbated crime and made it more difficult for his neighbors to get services they needed.

“The whole neighborhood has changed,” Mr. Brito, 51, said.

Outside the rally, those protesting said they had felt compelled to come to the park to make their voices heard in opposition to Mr. Trump’s views.

Melvin Howard, 65, a machinist who lives near Crotona Park, said he wanted to make clear his disapproval of the rally being held in his neighborhood and the views of the people attending it.

“These people shouldn’t be here in the South Bronx,” he said, pointing to a large number of white people in the crowd in a borough where the white population is less than 10 percent. “They are here to steal our Black votes. I don’t recognize any of them.”

As the protesters were demonstrating, the atmosphere became momentarily charged, with Trump supporters and anti-Trump protesters screaming obscenities at one another from across the street. The New York Police Department began separating both sides, lining the streets with metal barricades.

The Bronx remains one of the most Democratic counties in the country. President Biden won the borough by 68 percent in 2020, though Mr. Trump improved on his performance in 2016, when he lost by 79 percentage points.

But Mr. Trump brushed off those past results. “Don’t assume it doesn’t matter just because you live in a blue city,” he said. “You live in a blue city, but it’s going red very very quickly.”

Mr. Trump’s outing in the city where he spent most of his life seemed to elicit more reflectiveness than is characteristic of his stump speeches in battleground states.

He spent considerable time celebrating his history with New York, recounting his refurbishing an ice-skating rink in Central Park and his stewardship of a public golf course in the Bronx.

And he salted his speech with life lessons.

He expressed his admiration, at some length, for his father, a real-estate developer who Mr. Trump said loved to work and did so relentlessly, including on Sundays, and for the home builder William Levitt, who built Levittowns on Long Island and in other states. But Mr. Trump observed that Mr. Levitt had exited his business too early and was unable to make a comeback when he wanted to years later.

The reason, Mr. Trump said, was that he had squandered his momentum.

“You have to always keep moving forward,” Mr. Trump said. “And when it’s your time, you have to know it’s your time.”

Jeffery C. Mays contributed reporting.

Trump plays up his Putin ties in claiming he could get Gershkovich released.

Former President Donald J. Trump claimed that, if re-elected, he could draw on his relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin to press Russia into releasing Evan Gershkovich, the Wall Street Journal reporter who has been detained in a Moscow jail for more than a year.

Mr. Trump wrote in a social media post that Mr. Gershkovich would be “released almost immediately after the election, but definitely before I assume office,” suggesting that his securing Mr. Gershkovich’s release was contingent on his defeating President Biden in November.

“Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, will do that for me, but not for anyone else,” Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, added. Mr. Trump has frequently bragged about his positive relationship with Mr. Putin, whose strongman tendencies he has praised in interviews and on the campaign trail.

Asked about Mr. Trump’s post, a spokesman for the Kremlin, Dmitri S. Peskov, told reporters that “Putin has no contact with Donald Trump, of course.”

Mr. Gershkovich, who was arrested in March last year in Russia and charged with espionage shortly after, has been designated by the White House as “wrongfully detained,” a label signifying that the United States views him as the equivalent of a political hostage and believes the charges against him are fabricated.

Russia has not presented any evidence to support the spying charge, which Mr. Gershkovich and The Journal have vociferously rejected. The Biden administration has said it is working to secure his release.

T.J. Ducklo, a Biden campaign spokesman, criticized Mr. Trump over his claims that he turned down a deal to free Paul Whelan , a former Marine serving a 16-year sentence in Russia on what U.S. officials say are bogus espionage charges.

“For Donald Trump, these wrongfully imprisoned Americans are political weapons and props to use for his own gain. For Joe Biden, they are human beings whose loved ones and family members he has spent time with,” Mr. Ducklo said in a statement.

Mr. Gershkovich’s arrest was among a series of detentions of Americans in Russia over the past six years, which has raised concerns that Russia is hoping to use U.S. citizens as bargaining chips to secure the release of Russians being held in the West.

Mr. Trump often invokes his bond with Mr. Putin to bolster his claims that he could end the war in Ukraine, and that if he was still in office, the conflict would never have happened.

But while Mr. Trump has commented on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine many times, he had not spoken publicly about Mr. Gershkovich’s detention until last month, after he had been detained for more than a year.

In an interview with Time magazine , Mr. Trump explained his silence on the issue by saying: “I guess because I have so many things I’m working on. I have hundreds of things,” adding, “I probably have said very good things about him. Maybe it wasn’t reported.”

Mr. Trump also insisted then that he would be able to secure Mr. Gershkovich’s release more successfully than Mr. Biden because of his relationship with Mr. Putin. “I get along very well with Putin, but the reporter should be released and he will be released,” he said.

Russian officials have said that discussions about Mr. Gershkovich and other Americans detained in the country were being conducted “through a specialized closed channel.” The Kremlin spokesman, Mr. Peskov, on Thursday said that any conversations about Mr. Gershkovich’s release “must be conducted in complete silence and absolutely discreetly.” He added, “Only thus can they have a result.”

Mr. Ducklo sought to make a comparison between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin.

“Trump has called journalists ‘enemies of the people’ and pledged to imprison reporters whose coverage he doesn’t like — not all that dissimilar to what’s happening right now to Evan Gershkovich in Russia,” he said in the statement.

Anton Troianovski contributed reporting.

The governor of Ohio calls a special legislative session to ensure Biden is on the ballot.

Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio has called a special session of the General Assembly to resolve an issue that the state’s top elections official has said would prevent President Biden from being placed on the November ballot there.

Frank LaRose, the Republican secretary of state, had previously said that he planned to exclude Mr. Biden from the ballot because he would be officially nominated after a deadline for certifying presidential nominees on the ballot. This is usually a minor procedural issue, and states have almost always offered quick solutions to ensure that major presidential candidates are not excluded.

But a legislative fix that would have moved the deadline stalled out after colliding with a partisan clash over foreign donations. Republicans in the Ohio Senate advanced a bill that would resolve the issue but attached a partisan measure that would ban foreign money in state ballot initiatives. The measure went nowhere, and the General Assembly adjourned on Wednesday without a solution in place.

Mr. DeWine, who is also a Republican, said in his statement announcing the special session that the legislature had “failed to take action on this urgent matter,” noting that Ohio had previously passed temporary extensions to its certification deadline for President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012 and for President Donald J. Trump in 2020.

The governor said that the special session, which will begin on Tuesday, would be to pass legislation ensuring Mr. Biden is on the ballot, as well as legislation that would “prohibit campaign spending by foreign nationals.” Dan Tierney, a spokesman for Mr. DeWine, said that it would be up to the General Assembly whether the two measures would be in separate bills.

“It is important that when Ohioans cast their vote” for president, Mr. DeWine said, “they have the opportunity to cast a vote for either of the major-party candidates for those offices.”

Mr. LaRose, who had previously pushed for a legislative fix for the issue, lauded Mr. DeWine’s decision in a statement on social media, saying, “I applaud his decisive leadership in calling a special session to resolve this issue for the voters of our state.”

Other states had similar procedural issues this year where the late date of Mr. Biden’s nomination clashed with deadlines to get candidates on the ballot. Those states resolved the issue fairly quickly. In Alabama, for example, the State Legislature overwhelmingly passed a law granting an extension to the deadline. In Washington State, election officials said they would accept a provisional certification of Mr. Biden’s nomination.

But a legislative fix in Ohio had appeared all but dead earlier this week, with Jason Stephens, the House speaker, saying there was “just not the will” to pass a solution in the legislature. In a letter to the Democratic Party this week, Mr. LaRose also said he would not accept a provisional certification, adding that he would “instruct boards of elections to begin preparing ballots that do not include the Democratic Party’s nominees” unless the party offered a “legally acceptable remedy” for the issue.

Jeffery C. Mays

One of America’s most Democratic counties prepares for a Trump visit.

After weeks of being the headline-grabbing defendant in a criminal trial in Manhattan, Donald J. Trump will head to Crotona Park in the Bronx for a rally on Thursday where he no doubt hopes to take a more favorable star turn.

Predictably, many people in the Bronx are not happy about that.

“I wish he would just disappear,” said Noel Rivera, a retired subway track worker who was walking his dog in Crotona Park on Wednesday. “Nobody that I know supports him.”

Mr. Trump’s event on Thursday evening in the expansive park in the South Bronx is his first campaign rally in New York State since 2016.

His choice of the Bronx might seem odd, since it is one of the most deeply Democratic counties in the country.In 2020, President Biden won the Bronx by 68 percent. In 2016, Mr. Trump lost the Bronx by more than 300,000 votes.

Brian Hughes, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said the rally is part of an effort by Mr. Trump to “make sure that constituents that are not traditionally Republican to get spoken to, are seen and are heard.”

Mr. Trump, a longtime New Yorker who now lives in Florida, has spent much of his recent weeks in Manhattan at his criminal trial on charges that he falsified business records to cover up a payment to a porn star, who said she had a sexual encounter with him in 2006. The defense rested without Mr. Trump taking the stand; closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday.

At the rally, Mr. Trump is expected to talk about inflation and violent crime, said a campaign spokeswoman. The rally has a permit for 3,500 people, according to the Police Department.

“We’re making inroads across the city,” said Representative Nicole Malliotakis, the lone Republican member of New York City’s House delegation. “But you have to show up, and you have to talk to people about the issues that they care about. Right now those issues are the economy and public safety.”

The Bronx is 57 percent Hispanic, 28 percent Black and 8 percent white , according to census date. Recent polls show Mr. Trump gaining ground among some Black and Latino voters. Last year, a Republican councilwoman was elected to represent the Bronx for the first time in more than 40 years. Lee Zeldin, the Republican nominee for governor in 2022, came within six points of Gov. Kathy Hochul. But Ms. Hochul beat Mr. Zeldin by 55 percentage points in the Bronx.

Representative Ritchie Torres, a Bronx Democrat, said Mr. Trump owes the borough an apology because of his “catastrophic management” of the pandemic, which cost thousands of people in the borough their lives.

“He is so unpopular in the Bronx that he’s radioactive,” Mr. Torres said. “His approval ratings are lower than that of lead and arsenic .”

A protest elsewhere in the park is planned during Mr. Trump’s rally by Amanda Septimo, an assemblywoman from the Bronx, and Kirsten John Foy, president of the activism group Arc of Justice.

Mr. Foy said the rally, with prominent city unions, is designed to counter the narrative that Mr. Trump will do significantly better in places like the Bronx.

“He’s trying to distract and to deflect from the fact that he’s under criminal indictment,” Mr. Foy said. “The best way to get off the front page for being a criminal and get on the front page for being a candidate is to hold a rally in the media capital of the world.”

Most people in Crotona Park on Wednesday morning seemed unhappy that Mr. Trump was coming. Maggie Rodriguez, 57, an electrician who was walking her Chihuahua in the park, cringed at the site of the Trump team setting up for the rally.

“We won’t have a democracy anymore,” if Mr. Trump is re-elected, she said. “God bless America.”

But the feeling was not unanimous. Erica Perez, 37, a store clerk, said she liked that Mr. Trump had referenced the Bible.

“I’m happy he’s coming,” she said. “When Trump was president, America was better.”

Arsenio Colon, 79, a retired maintenance worker, said he used to vote Democrat but now supports Mr. Trump and the Republican Party because he likes its tough stance on foreign policy with China.

“Anytime the Democratic Party is on top, this country has more problems,” said Mr. Colon, who lives near the park. “This country needs a strong president all the time.”

As workers set up a stage for Mr. Trump on Wednesday, a campaign representative asked a New York Times reporter to leave and threatened to call the police, asserting that the permit allowed the campaign to eject uninvited guests from the public park.

Karoline Leavitt, a Trump spokeswoman, said park security and law enforcement “are notified to assist” when an “individual refuses to leave the permitted area.”

Mr. Rivera, who has lived in the Bronx since 1958, said he would need no encouragement to leave the area once the rally begins.

“He’ll be lucky if he gets 35 people from around here to support him,” he said.

Michael Gold and Chelsia Rose Marcius contributed reporting.

Jonathan Weisman

The G.O.P. and the Secret Service clash again over the convention protest zone.

The Republican National Committee, alarmed by what it sees as a significantly worsening security threat, asked on Thursday that the director of the Secret Service personally intervene and grant a request to move a designated protest zone farther away from convention participants in Milwaukee this summer.

Republicans have demanded for nearly a month that the Secret Service push back the protesters from the convention site. Now, seven weeks before the start of the convention on July 15, a letter from Todd R. Steggerda, a counsel to the R.N.C., has raised the stakes.

“Your failure to act now to prevent these unnecessary and certain risks will imperil tens of thousands of convention attendees, inexcusably forcing them into close proximity to the currently planned First Amendment Zone,” Mr. Steggerda wrote to Kimberly A. Cheatle, the director of the Secret Service, referring to a designated protest site at Pere Marquette Park , a small public park on the bank of the Milwaukee River, about a quarter-mile from the arena hosting the convention.

In his letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Steggerda cited “an increased and untenable risk of violence” from a “rapidly deteriorating security environment,” and demanded that Ms. Cheatle intervene. The Secret Service is tasked with leading security for both major-party conventions this summer.

The Republican Party has previously argued that, in the current plan, those attending the convention will be forced to pass by the protesters on their way into the venue, increasing the opportunity for confrontation.

The Secret Service responded in a lengthy statement to Mr. Steggerda’s letter, saying that officials had held “multiple meetings” with the R.N.C. chairman, convention staff and concerned senators, but that the agency was “confident in the security plan being developed.”

Anthony Guglielmi, the chief of communications for the Secret Service, also castigated Mr. Steggerda for detailing security plans not yet finalized or released to the public, accusing him of jeopardizing the safety of convention-goers — precisely what Mr. Steggerda said he was concerned about.

“Publicly disclosing security information, as done in this letter, undermines our ability to maintain the integrity of our security plan and keep the convention, attendees and the public safe,” Mr. Guglielmi said.

Both parties are concerned about an acute political divide that has led to a sharp increase in threats of political violence . Much attention has been paid to expected protests — mainly from Palestinian rights activists — at the Democratic National Convention planned for August in Chicago.

But Republicans say the threat of violence has already emerged against supporters of their presumptive nominee, former President Donald J. Trump. A man set himself on fire last month in front of the Manhattan courthouse where Mr. Trump is on criminal trial, and on Wednesday, a suspicious package with two vials of blood prompted a lockdown at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington.

Some protesters have already vowed that they will not remain confined to the designated demonstration site in Milwaukee, just as some have said that they will not apply for permits in Chicago or be corralled there.

Some Milwaukee officials have also made it clear that they want the security perimeter to be as tight as possible to not interfere with the city’s summer activities, the most important economic time in Wisconsin.

Jeff Fleming, a spokesman for Milwaukee’s mayor, Cavalier Johnson, said the city was willing to listen to the concerns of convention planners. But he pushed back on Mr. Steggerda’s assertion that there was a “critical flaw” in the existing security plan.

“We recognize that the security zone is set based on the vast experience of all law enforcement partners,” he added. “If they were to say, ‘Oh, it has to be four additional blocks to the east or west,’ we would respect that decision. That is not what the law enforcement professionals are saying.”

Secret Service officials said the city, not the service, designates the protest zone.

“Our security perimeters are based on public safety metrics, including protective intelligence, risk and threat assessments,” Mr. Guglielmi added. “Our model is designed to ensure the highest level of security while minimizing impacts on the public.”

In light of the proximity of convention-goers to the protesters, Mr. Steggerda said the Secret Service should expand the convention’s walled-off security perimeter into Pere Marquette Park, and push the protest zone south about a half-mile to Zeidler Union Square, providing convention-goers “an essential — but modest — protective physical separation from the anticipated demonstrators.”

According to the letter, Secret Service officials have told convention planners that expanding the security perimeter would be legally impermissible — a point that Mr. Steggerda rejected.

“With less than two months before the convention and even less time before the U.S.S.S. finalizes the plan, it is imperative you take personal and immediate steps to fix this unacceptable flaw in the design of the security perimeter,” he wrote.

Maggie Astor

A political consultant who orchestrated fake Biden robocalls is indicted.

Grand juries in four New Hampshire counties have indicted a Democratic consultant who admitted to orchestrating robocalls in January that used an artificial-intelligence impersonation of President Biden to urge Democrats not to vote in the state’s presidential primary.

The consultant, Steven Kramer, faces about two dozen counts split between impersonating a candidate, a misdemeanor, and voter suppression, a felony. Each pair of charges is tied to a specific voter who received the robocall.

The indictments were handed up over the past month, and the New Hampshire attorney general, John M. Formella, announced them on Thursday.

Separately on Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission fined Mr. Kramer $6 million for trying to “defraud voters using call spoofing technology that violates the Truth in Caller ID Act.”

The F.C.C. also levied a $2 million fine against Lingo Telecom, the company through which the calls were routed, accusing it of “failing to follow our call authentication policies.”

Neither Mr. Kramer nor Lingo Telecom immediately responded to requests for comment.

The news of the indictments against Mr. Kramer was first reported by WMUR-TV in Manchester, N.H.

The criminal charges against Mr. Kramer — filed in Belknap, Grafton, Merrimack and Rockingham Counties — allege that he “knowingly attempted to prevent or deter” each voter from voting “based on fraudulent, deceptive, misleading or spurious grounds or information.” They also allege that, through his actions or another person’s actions for which he is legally responsible, he placed a call to each voter in which he “falsely represented himself as a candidate for office.”

Arraignments are scheduled in the four counties for June 5, 14, 17 and 26, according to charging documents provided by a spokesman for the New Hampshire Judicial Branch.

Mr. Kramer admitted in February that he had been behind the robocalls, which urged New Hampshire residents not to participate in the presidential primary in January because “your vote makes a difference in November, not this Tuesday.” The caller ID was falsified to show the number of a former chairwoman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.

The former chairwoman, Kathleen Sullivan, praised the New Hampshire Justice Department on social media for its “fast work” and said she hoped the indictments served as a deterrent to similar robocalls in the future.

Mr. Kramer said he had hired Paul Carpenter, an itinerant magician and technology and marketing consultant, to produce the audio for the calls using an A.I. tool — a fact alluded to in the charging documents, which refer to Mr. Kramer being responsible for actions taken by another party.

Mr. Carpenter, who said in February that he had been unaware of how Mr. Kramer intended to use the audio, has not been charged.

Mr. Kramer claimed in February to have placed the calls in an effort to expose the dangers of A.I. in campaigns and to prompt regulatory action.

Mr. Carpenter disputed that claim, saying that Mr. Kramer had told him he wanted to assess the technology with an eye toward offering it as a service to future clients.

Mr. Kramer was working for Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, then a candidate in the Democratic presidential primary, around the time of the robocalls. But both he and Mr. Phillips said the campaign had been unaware of his actions, which Mr. Phillips condemned.

Neil Vigdor

A House candidate pitched herself as a ‘renter.’ She also owns a $1.2 million home.

Maggie Tamposi Goodlander, a former White House aide to President Biden who is running for an open House seat in New Hampshire, is drawing attention for having pitched herself as a renter while she also owns a $1.2 million home.

“I am a renter, and there should be more renters in Congress,” Ms. Goodlander, a Democrat running in the state’s Second District, told The Boston Globe in her first interview as a candidate.

But that declaration comes with an asterisk: the home that she and her husband, Jake Sullivan, Mr. Biden’s national security adviser, own in Portsmouth, N.H. Records show that the couple purchased that residence for roughly $1.2 million in 2018. A real estate listing website described the property as a “private oasis.”

Ms. Goodlander, who has deep political connections , had been teaching law at the University of New Hampshire and Dartmouth College after moving to Portsmouth, a seaside city, in 2018, but she returned to Washington to work in the Justice Department after Mr. Biden won the presidency.

The Portsmouth house is in a different district than the one that Ms. Goodlander is seeking to represent, though the state has only two. The house she rented just before getting into the race is in Nashua, N.H., in a district that runs the length of the state and includes all of its western portion.

There is no requirement for House members to live in the district they represent, though they must be a resident of the state they are representing at the time of their election.

The Daily Beast first reported on the million-dollar price tag of Ms. Goodlander’s Portsmouth home. A spokesman for her campaign did not immediately comment on Thursday.

Ms. Goodlander has dismissed concerns about her time spent living outside New Hampshire by underscoring her family’s deep roots in the state, which she also highlighted in a video announcing her candidacy . Her mother, Betty Tamposi, served as a Republican legislator in the New Hampshire Statehouse and ran for the same seat that Ms. Goodlander is now trying to win.

Ms. Goodlander said in her announcement video that Nashua “has been my family’s home for over a hundred years.” A home long owned by her family there was sold in 2008, according to the real estate website Zillow and public records.

That same year was the last time that Ms. Goodlander cast a ballot in the district that she is running to represent, voting absentee when she was an undergraduate at Yale University, records show.

The seat that Ms. Goodlander is running for is being vacated by Representative Ann McLane Kuster, a Democrat, who announced in March that she would not seek re-election.

The race, in a Democrat-leaning district, has drawn a long list of candidates from both parties. Becky Whitley, a Democratic state senator, and Colin Van Ostern, a former state executive councilor who managed Ms. Kuster’s first House campaign and was the party’s nominee for governor in 2016, are among those running in the Democratic primary.

The primary elections will be held in September.

Pizza deliveries and bodega stops: Trump’s Big Apple campaign.

Former President Donald J. Trump is accustomed to crisscrossing the country on his private jet, headlining rallies at big venues where he is met by roaring masses chanting his name. But often over the last month, his presidential campaign has ventured into politically hostile territory: New York City.

He stopped in to chat with the owner of a tiny Harlem bodega. He made an early-morning visit to a construction site in Midtown Manhattan, shaking hands with union members wearing hard hats and safety goggles. He delivered pizzas to and posed for snapshots with emergency workers at a firehouse just minutes away from Trump Tower.

You might be forgiven for wondering if Mr. Trump were actually running for mayor.

Since the start of his criminal trial in Manhattan on April 15, which requires he be in court for much of the week, Mr. Trump has held just three campaign rallies, only two of which took place in battleground states expected to determine the outcome of the election. He has made just as many modest stops in New York in front of smaller crowds.

The small-scale politicking, which New Yorkers are more accustomed to seeing from local politicians trying to gin up support, has been a study in contrasts to the raucous rallies that have defined his political brand since his 2016 campaign. And they have offered a markedly different atmosphere still from court, where Mr. Trump is bound by rules of conduct that keep him largely still and silent even as prosecutors accuse him of wrongdoing.

“It does feel like a local race,” said George Arzt, a longtime political consultant in New York City who once served as press secretary to Mayor Edward I. Koch . “It does feel like he’s almost going out there door to door.”

Mr. Trump, a born-and-bred New Yorker who moved to Florida in 2019, has repeatedly suggested these stops are part of a push to win his home state, which has overwhelmingly rejected him twice. But New York has not voted for a Republican president since 1984, and Democratic candidates defeated him by more than 20 percentage points in the last two elections. New York City itself is deeply Democratic.

Political observers and Trump aides have said that Mr. Trump’s campaign stops in New York City are as much about the message they are sending to a national audience as they are to New Yorkers. On Thursday, Mr. Trump is expected to return more to form, with a planned speech at a park in the Bronx that his campaign said it expected thousands to attend.

Brian Hughes, a campaign spokesman, suggested that the event, in Crotona Park, in a borough with large Black and Hispanic populations, would allow Mr. Trump to highlight to a national audience his strength among “voting blocs that you might argue are not traditional Republican voting blocs.”

Mr. Trump last month vowed that he would hold a rally at Madison Square Garden, the city’s marquee venue in Manhattan, meant for “honoring the police and honoring the firemen and everybody, honoring a lot of people.” Mr. Trump, who has been indicted in four cases, has repeatedly tried to showcase his support among emergency responders this year, including with his visit this month to a Manhattan firehouse.

Still, so far, Mr. Trump’s campaign visits in New York have largely been limited to small stops, ones that his advisers have said are borne somewhat out of necessity given the court schedule, which has generally allowed Wednesdays and weekends off.

On one Wednesday, Mr. Trump held rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin, two important swing states. He spent a Saturday at a rally at the Jersey Shore that attracted visitors from neighboring Pennsylvania, another key battleground. Yet even as Mr. Trump has lamented that the trial limits his ability to campaign, he has attended fund-raisers on some days when court was not in session, while on others, he has had no scheduled events.

Working within the trial schedule, Mr. Trump’s aides have also looked to use its constraints to their advantage. Advisers have argued that New York City, a diverse metropolis of more than eight million, offers an ideal backdrop for Mr. Trump to highlight issues he has made central to his platform, such as immigration, the economy and public safety.

“These same issues that are plaguing New York City are also plaguing all of the battleground states,” Jason Miller, a senior Trump adviser, said in an interview.

The Biden campaign has sought to capitalize on and draw attention to Mr. Trump’s scheduling limits. President Biden has been campaigning more often on Wednesdays , and he made light of the trial calendar in a video challenging Mr. Trump to debate . The campaign also began selling shirts with the slogan “Free on Wednesdays.”

Mr. Trump’s first campaign stop during the trial, just two days into the proceedings, was to a bodega in a heavily Hispanic area of Harlem that had been the site of a stabbing years earlier. The former president used the visit to highlight a set of overlapping issues and to build on his efforts to win over Latino voters.

After chatting with the store’s owner, Mr. Trump stood in front of cameras outside and criticized Mr. Biden’s economic policies as detrimental to small businesses. And fresh from appearing as a criminal defendant, Mr. Trump railed against the district attorney prosecuting him and Democrats in general for being overly lax on crime.

The visit drew more significant crowds than Mr. Trump’s other stops in the city. The blocks surrounding the bodega were lined with people standing behind police barricades hoping to catch a glimpse, some of them supporters and others merely curious.

That level of attention distinguishes the former president’s stops in the city from those made by most other politicians in and around New York.

Mr. Trump and his campaign have cited the onlookers as proof that he is politically popular in the city, particularly among Hispanics. Mr. Miller noted that the bodega’s neighborhood was an example of “communities that don’t normally have national political figures come and visit them.”

Other political observers have argued that the crowds in Harlem were more reflective of Mr. Trump’s celebrity status rather than agreement with his views.

“He is a celebrity first, and people are interested in him, even if they don’t agree with him,” said Bill de Blasio, a Democratic former mayor who ran a short-lived presidential bid for the 2020 nomination.

Still, Mr. de Blasio, a frequent Trump critic, acknowledged that the former president’s New York stops would help him broadcast his political message. And he noted that such retail politicking would energize any candidate — particularly one spending the day facing austere court proceedings.

Last month, Mr. Trump preceded his day in court with a visit to a construction site, where he shook hands with dozens of invited guests. Many were union workers. As he worked the line, people inside the construction site clambered on top of scaffolding and equipment to take photos and videos.

Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime New York political strategist who watched Mr. Trump evolve from tabloid fixture to celebrity to politician, said that such a stop was consistent with Mr. Trump’s decades-long effort to represent himself as the champion of working-class people.

“He is a guy who took tremendous pride in being able to be accepted by average working people,” Mr. Sheinkopf said. “He wants to make sure he doesn’t lose that touch. His appeal comes from being an elite who is not an elite.”

Nicholas Nehamas contributed reporting.

Reid J. Epstein

Reporting from Washington

As Trump campaigns in New York, Biden points Black voters to his rival’s past.

President Biden’s campaign on Thursday released a new advertisement aimed at Black voters . It comes as former President Donald J. Trump is planning a political event in the Bronx , a play by his campaign not necessarily to compete in New York State but to highlight Mr. Biden’s weakness with a key group of Democratic voters.

The ad will appear on digital platforms in New York City on Thursday, the Biden campaign said, and on television in battleground-state markets including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Detroit and Macon, Ga.

What the ad says

It begins with Mr. Trump saying, “Of course, I hate these people” — a remark he made during a 1989 interview on CNN , referring to those who had been accused of a brutal rape of a jogger in what became known as the Central Park Five case.

Five Black and Latino men were wrongly convicted in the case, and at the time, Mr. Trump fueled racist reaction to the attack by taking out full-page advertisements in local newspapers, including The New York Times, calling for the death penalty to be reinstated .

Putting more than a little spin on the ball, the Biden ad uses that context to suggest Mr. Trump was saying in the 1989 interview that he hated all Black people. An ominous voice says: “Donald Trump disrespecting Black folks is nothing new.”

The clip then recounts Mr. Trump’s treatment of Black people: his family business’s documented bias at its rental properties decades ago; his response to the Central Park Five case; and his remarks as president defending white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va.

It closes as it began, with Mr. Trump saying, “Of course, I hate these people.”

What the ad is trying to do

The Biden campaign and its allies have for months struggled to reverse a decline in popularity with Black voters , particularly Black men.

By resurfacing Mr. Trump’s 35-year-old foray into the Central Park Five episode, Mr. Biden is trying to remind voters about a Trump past that they may have forgotten about or never been aware of to begin with.

It fits with the Biden campaign’s effort this week to disqualify Mr. Trump as unfit — Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, on Tuesday called the former president “a known antisemite” — and it reflects a recognition that Mr. Biden’s North-Star message on abortion rights may need broadening to reach all the voters he will need to win in November.

Nicholas Nehamas

A former high-ranking Trump official meets with Arab and Muslim American leaders.

As President Biden’s support among Arab and Muslim Americans withers over his backing of Israel in the war in Gaza, former President Donald J. Trump is making a long-shot push to take advantage.

On Tuesday, Richard Grenell, a former high-ranking official in the Trump administration, met for more than two hours with a group of about 40 Arab and Muslim American leaders at an Italian restaurant outside Detroit. Mr. Grenell was joined by the former president’s son-in-law Michael Boulos, who is married to Tiffany Trump and is Lebanese American, though the Trump campaign said it had not organized the meeting.

Many Arab and Muslim American voters have said they are so angry with Mr. Biden over his Israel policy that they will sit out the election, despite supporting him in large numbers in 2020. But Mr. Grenell told the group that it had the chance to exercise extraordinary political power by backing Mr. Trump instead, according to six people who attended the meeting.

Mr. Grenell argued that if Muslim and Arab Americans publicly swung their support to the former president — and helped him win Michigan, a key battleground state — they would demonstrate to both Republicans and Democrats that they could not be ignored.

“The door is open to start to explore,” said Yahya Basha, a Syrian American radiologist from Royal Oak, Mich., who helped organize the meeting. “Let’s go approach and see what Trump has to offer.”

Dr. Basha and others present described the meeting as light on policy details and said they needed to hear more before committing to support Mr. Trump. Several others who attended were already Trump supporters, but some had cast their ballots for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Mr. Grenell, who served as Mr. Trump’s acting director of national intelligence, even asked the former president if he would address the group on speaker phone, but Mr. Trump called back only after the meeting had ended, according to Ali Abdelaziz, who manages fighters in the Ultimate Fighting Championship and attended the meeting as a guest of Mr. Grenell.

“He wanted to talk to everyone at the meeting,” Mr. Abdelaziz said of Mr. Trump. “But he thanked us and promised he would bring peace.”

Details of the meeting were earlier reported by the website NOTUS. Mr. Grenell declined to comment. Michael Boulos and his father, Massad Boulos, who also attended, could not be reached.

Despite the meeting, Mr. Trump is unlikely to win the support of a majority of Arab and Muslim American voters. He was a staunch supporter of Israel during his term in office, called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” as a candidate in 2015 and then carried out a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries, which he has talked of reviving .

Mr. Trump’s outreach to Muslim and Arab Americans “is patently absurd, gullible to the extreme and supremely naïve,” said Keith Ellison, the Democratic attorney general of Minnesota, who is Muslim. “The one thing you can trust Trump to do is to say what he needs to say to get what he wants.”

Abbas Alawieh, one of the leaders of a movement among Democrats pressuring Mr. Biden to change his policy on the war in Gaza, said Mr. Trump was “looking to exploit and capitalize upon the deep pain of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim American communities right now.”

“They’re losers, and they can try all they want,” Mr. Alawieh said of the Trump campaign. “We won’t be taken as fools here in Michigan. Whether or not Trump makes gains here is really more dependent on whether President Biden comes out more forcefully against this war.”

But even a small swing in support toward Mr. Trump could prove crucial in what is expected to be a tight election decided by a handful of voters in a few battleground states.

And Mr. Biden is facing serious backlash from Arab and Muslim Americans over the war in Gaza. Prominent community leaders have said their communications with the White House have broken down in the absence of a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. During the Democratic primaries, the protest movement against Mr. Biden garnered significant support in states with large Arab and Muslim populations, including Michigan and Minnesota.

Still, the outreach effort from Mr. Trump’s team is in its early stages.

Brian Hughes, a senior Trump adviser, said the meeting was “not authorized, sanctioned or requested by the Trump campaign or President Trump.” But Mr. Hughes acknowledged that outreach was being made, saying that Arab and Muslim Americans make up a “disaffected Democrat voting bloc” and that “our campaign is working to communicate to that community how successful President Trump was in his term at establishing a more stable, peaceful Middle East.”

Ammar Moussa, a spokesman for Mr. Biden, called Mr. Trump “the biggest threat to the Muslim and Arab community.”

“He and his allies believe we don’t belong in this country, and Trump is openly speaking about allowing Israel to bomb Gaza without any regard,” Mr. Moussa said. “Trump and his campaign are racists and Islamophobes. Period.”

At the meeting, attendees described Mr. Grenell as saying that Mr. Trump would not call for an immediate and permanent cease-fire, a demand of many Arab and Muslim American leaders, with Israeli and American hostages still being held by Hamas. And he declined to commit to a two-state solution with Hamas still in charge of Gaza.

But he did argue that Mr. Trump would “muscle” his way to peace, ending a war that has claimed tens of thousands of Palestinian lives , five attendees said. He also defended Mr. Trump’s travel ban, saying it was a temporary measure narrowly targeted at nations that required “extreme vetting.”

At one point, Mr. Grenell expressed hopes that Gaza could eventually benefit from economic development, pointing out that it possesses a valuable waterfront on the Mediterranean Sea. (Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s other son-in-law, was criticized after making similar comments this year. Mr. Kushner also suggested that Palestinians be “moved out” of the territory.)

Those who attended the meeting said they expected Mr. Grenell to set up additional meetings, both in Michigan and other swing states. Several attendees also raised concerns over the long-running civil war in Syria.

Bishara Bahbah, who traveled from Arizona to Michigan for the meeting, said he was impressed that people with such close ties to Mr. Trump were making overtures.

“We had heavyweights there,” Mr. Bahbah said.

Jonathan Swan contributed reporting from Washington.

Advertisement