persuasive speech about election 2022

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Remarks by President   Biden in Press   Conference

State Dining Room

(November 9, 2022)

4:15 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Well, we had an election yesterday.  (Laughter.)  And it was a good day, I think, for democracy.  And I think it was a good day for America.  (Clears throat.)  Excuse me, I’m a little hoarse.

Our democracy has been tested in recent years.  But with their votes, the American people have spoken and proven once again that democracy is who we are.

The states across the country saw record voter turnout.  And the heart and soul of our democracy — the voters, the poll workers, the election officials — they did their job and they fulfilled their duty, and apparently without much interference at all — without any interference, it looks like.  And that’s a testament, I think, to the American people.

While we don’t know all of the results yet — at least, I don’t know them all yet — here’s what we do know.  While the press and the pundits are predicting a giant red wave, it didn’t happen.  And I know you were somewhat miffed by my — my obsessant [sic] optimism, but I felt good during the whole process.  I thought we were going to do fine.

While any seat lost is painful — some good Democrats didn’t win the — last night — Democrats had a strong night.  And we lost fewer seats in the House of Representatives than any Democratic President’s first midterm election in the last 40 years.  And we had the best midterms for governors since 1986.

And another thing that we know is that voters spoke clearly about their concerns — about raising costs — the rising costs and the need to get inflation down.  There are still a lot of people hurting that are very concerned.  And it’s about crime and public safety.  And they sent a clear and unmistakable message that they want to preserve our democracy and protect the right to choose in this country.

And I especially want to thank the young people of this nation, who — I’m told; I haven’t seen the numbers — voted in historic numbers again and — just as they did two years ago.  They voted to continue addressing the climate crisis, gun violence, their personal rights and freedoms, and the student debt relief.

Last night, I was pleased to call Maxwell Frost, the 25-year-old who got elected — I guess the youngest man ever elected to the United States Congress.  And I told him that he — I told him that I was the first elected — the second-youngest person ever elected to the United States Senate at 29; that I have no doubt he’s off to an incredible start in what, I’m sure, will be a long, distinguished career.  And when he’s President and they say, “Joe Biden is out in the outer office,” I don’t want him to say, “Joe who?”  (Laughter.)

But the voters were also clear that they’re still frustrated.  I get it.  I understand it’s been a really tough few years in this country for so many people.

When I came to office, we inherited a nation with a pandemic raging and an economy that was reeling.  And we acted quickly and boldly to vaccinate the country and to create a stable and sustained growth in our economy; long-term investment to rebuild America itself and our roads, our bridges, our ports, our airports, clean water systems, high-speed Internet. 

And we’re just getting started.  The interesting thing is that this is all going to really come into clear view for people in the months — in the months of January, February, March of next year.  It’s just getting underway.  So, I’m optimistic about how the public is going to even be more embracive of what we’ve done.

Historic investments that are leading companies to invest literally hundreds of billions of dollars combined to build semiconductor factories and other advanced manufacturing here in America.  It’s going to create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.

And, by the way, a significant number of those jobs are going to be jobs that pay an average of $126-, $127,000.  And you don’t need a college degree to get those jobs.

We’re dealing with global inflation as a result of the pandemic and Putin’s war in Ukraine.  We’re also handling it better than most other advanced nations in the world.

We’re lowering gas prices.

We looking — we’re taking on powerful interests to lower prescription drug costs and health insurance premiums and energy bills.

After 20 months of hard work, the pandemic no longer controls our lives.  It’s still a concern, but it no longer controls our lives.

Our economic policies have created a record 10 million new jobs since I came into office.  The unemployment rate is down from 6.4 when I was sworn in to 3.7 percent — near a 50-year low.  And we’ve done all this while lowering the federal deficit in the two years by $1.7 trillion.  Let me say it again: $1.7 trillion.  No administration has ever cut the deficit that much.

And reducing the federal deficit is one of the best things we can do to lower inflation.  But while we’ve made real progress as a nation, I know it’s hard for folks to see that project — that progress in their everyday lives.

And it’s hard to see the results from actions that we took while — that we have to implement what we’ve done.  But I believe we took the right steps for the country and for the American people.

In fact, if you look at the polls, an overwhelming majority — I don’t look at them much anymore, because I’m not sure how to read them anymore.  (Laughter.)  I hope you are uncertain as well. 

But the overwhelming majority of the American people support the elements of my economic agenda — from rebuilding America’s roads and bridges; to lowering prescription drug costs; to a historic investment in tack- — tackling the climate crisis; to making sure that large corporations begin to pay their fair share in taxes.

And I’m confident these policies are working and that we’re on the right path, and we need to stick with them.

All these initiatives take hold as they do, from lead pipes being removed from schools and homes, to new factories being built in communities with a resurgence of American manufacturing.  It’s already created, by the way, 700,000 brand new manufacturing jobs.      You’ve heard me say it ad nauseam: I don’t know where it’s written it says we can’t be the manufacturing capital of the world.  We are now exporting product, not jobs, around the world.      People across the country are going to see even more clearly the positive effects on their day-to-day lives.  But I still understand why they’re hurting right now and so many people are concerned.      As I have throughout my career, I’m going to continue to work across the aisle to deliver for the American people.  And it’s not always easy, but we did it the first term.  And I’ll be — surprised lot of people that we signed over 210 bipartisan laws since I’ve become President.  And we’re revitalizing American manufacturing; gun safety — we did it together — and dozens of laws positively impacting on our veterans.      And let me say this: Regardless — regardless of what the final tally in these elections show — and there’s still some counting going on — I’m prepared to work with my Republican colleagues.  The American people have made clear, I think, that they expect Republicans to be prepared to work with me as well.

     In the area of foreign policy, I hope we’ll continue this bipartisan approach of confronting Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.      When I return from the G20 meetings in Indonesia with other world leaders, I’m going to invite the leaders of both political parties, as I’ve done in the past on my foreign trips, to the White House to discuss how we can work together for the remainder of this year and into the next Congress to advance the economic and national security priorities of the United States.       And I’m open to any good ideas.  I want to be very clear: I’m not going to support any Republican proposal that’s going to make inflation worse.  For example, the voters don’t want to pay higher prescription costs for drugs.  We’ve cut that now.  We’re going to kick into gear next year — the next calendar year.  And I’m not going to walk away from the historic commitments we just made to take on the climate crisis.  They’re not compromise-able issues to me, and I won’t let it happen.      The voters don’t want more taxes for the super we- — tax cuts for the super wealthy and biggest corporations.  And I’m going to continue to focus on cost-cutting for working- and middle-class families, and building an economy from the bottom up in the middle out.      I know you’re tired of hearing me say that, but I genuinely mean it.  That’s what makes America grow.  The wealthy do very well when the middle class is doing well, and the poor have a way up.      And while continuing to bring down the federal deficit.      You know, as we look at tax cuts, we should be looking at tax cuts for working people and middle-class people, not the very wealthy.  They’re fine.      I — look, I — if you can go out and be a multimillionaire, that’s great.  Just — just pay your fair share.  That’s all.  That’s all.  Just pay your fair share.  It’s like those 55 corporations in 2000 [2020] that made $40 billion and didn’t pay a penny in federal taxes.      It’s not right.  Everybody has an obligation.  So now they have to pay a staggering 15 percent.  And you all pay more than that in your taxes.      So I’m going to keep my commitment that no one — no one earning less than $400,000 a year — and that’s a lot of money, where I come from — are going to see their federal taxes go up.       And I want to be very clear: Under no circumstances will I support the proposal put forward by Senator Johnson and the senator from down in Florida to cut or make fundamental changes in Social Security and Medicare.  That’s not on the table.  I will not do that.      I will veto any attempt to pass a national ban on abortion.       But I’m ready to compromise with the Republicans where it makes sense on many other issues.  And I’ll always put the needs and interests of the American people first.      So let me close with this.  On this election season, the American people made it clear: They don’t want every day going forward to be a constant political battle.  There’s too much that — of that going on.  And there’s too much that we have to do.      The future of America is too promising — too promising to be trapped in an endless political warfare.      And I really mean it.  You’ve heard me say it time and again for the last 20 months or so: I am so optimistic about the prospects for America.  We need to be looking to the future, not fixated on the past.  And that future is bright as can be.      We — we’re the only nation in the world that’s come out of every crisis stronger than we went into the crisis.  And that’s a fact.  I mean — I mean I literally mean that: We’ve come out stronger than we’ve gone in.      And I’ve never been more optimistic about America’s future than I am today.  You know, I — particularly because of all those young people I’ve talked about, 18 to 30.  They’re showing up.  They’re the best-educated generation in American history, they’re the least prejudiced generation in American history, the most engaged generation in American history, and the most involved.      Look, after a long campaign season, I still believe what I always have: This is a great nation, and we’re a great people.  And it’s never been a good bet to bet against America.  Never been a good bet to bet against America.      There’s nothing, nothing beyond our capacity if we work together.  We just need to remember who the hell we are.  We’re the United States of America.  The United States of America.  There’s nothing beyond our capacity.      And I’m pretty well convinced that we’re going to be able to get a lot done.  Now, I’ve been given a list of 10 people that I’m supposed to call on.  And you’re all supposed to ask me one question, but I’m sure you’ll ask me more.  (Laughter.)      And so let me start off with a list I’ve been given.  Zeke Miller, Associated Press.

     Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have two questions for you.  As you mentioned — (laughter).  As you mentioned —      THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  How come we never hold you guys to the same standards you hold us to?  (Laughter.)  But, anyway, go ahead.      Q    (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.

Q    You mentioned that Americans are frustrated.  And, in fact, 75 percent of voters say the country is heading in the wrong direction, despite the results of last night.  What in the next two years do you intend to do differently to change people’s opinion of the direction of the country, particularly as you contemplate a run for President in 2024?      THE PRESIDENT:  Nothing, because they’re just finding out what we’re doing.  The more they know about what we’re doing, the more support there is.      Do you know anybody who wants us to get rid of the change we made on prescription drug prices and raise prices again?  Do you know anybody who wants us to walk away from building those roads and bridges and — and the Internet and so on?  I don’t — I don’t know any- —      I think that the problem is the major piece of legislation we passed — and some of it bipartisan — takes time to be recognized.      For example, you got — you got over a trillion dollars’ worth of infrastructure money, but not that many spades have been put in the ground.  It’s taking time.      For example, I was on the phone congratulating a Californian recently and then someone in — up in Scranton, Pennsylvania — the Congressman who got elected.  And he said, “Can you help us make sure we’re able to have high-speed rail ser- — rail service from Scranton to New York — New York City?”  I said, “Yeah, we can.  We can.”      First of all, it’ll make it a lot easier, take a lot of vehicles off the road.  And we have more money in the — in the pot now already — already out there — we voted for — than the entire money we spent on Amtrak to begin with.      It’s the same way — for example, I talked about, through the campaign, that we’re going to limit the cost of insulin for seniors to $35 a month instead of $400 a month.  Well, it doesn’t take effect until next year.      So there’s a lot of things that are just starting to kick in.  And the same way with what we’ve done in terms of environmental stuff.  It takes time to get it moving. 

So, I’m not going to change — as a matter of fact, you know there’s some things I want to change and add to.  For example, we had — passed the most bipartisan, we passed the most extensive gun legislation, anti- — you know, rational gun policy in 30 years.  And — but we didn’t ban assault weapons.  I’m going to ban assault weapons.  They’re going to try like the devil —

So, I’m not going to change the direction.  I said I ran for three reasons.  I’m going to continue to stay where I’m — and I know — I fully understand the legitimate concern that what I’m saying is wrong.  Okay?

One is that I said we’re going to restore the soul of the country, begin to treat each other with decency, honor, and integrity.  And it’s starting to happen.  People are — the conversations are becoming more normal, becoming more — more — how can I say it? — decent. 

Second thing I said is I want to build a country from the middle out and the bottom up.  And that way, everybody does fine.  I’m tired of trickle-down.  Not a whole lot trickles down when you trickle down to hardworking folks. 

And the third thing — I know is still very hard — I’m going to do everything in my power to see through that we unite the country.  It’s hard to sustain yourself as a leading democracy in the world if you can’t — can’t generate some unity. 

So, I’m not going to change anything in any fundamental way.

Q    And just on a different topic, Mr. President.  Russia today claimed that it had evacuated the Kherson region and the Kherson city.  Do you believe that this is potentially an inflection in that conflict?  And do you believe that Ukraine now has the leverage it needs to begin peace negotiations with Moscow?

THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, I found it interesting they waited until after the election to make that judgement, which we knew for some time that they were going to be doing.  And it’s evidence of the fact that they have some real problems — Russian — the Russian military.  Number one.

Number two, whether or not that leads to — at a minimum, it will lead to time for everyone to recalibrate their positions over the winter period.  And it remains to be seen whether or not there’ll be a judgment made as to whether or not Ukraine is prepared to compromise with Russia. 

I’m going to be going to the G20.  I’m told that President Putin is not likely to be there, but other world leaders are going to be there in Indonesia.  And we’re going to have an opportunity to see what — what the next steps may be.

Nancy.  CBS.  Nancy Cordes.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have a few questions. 

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Okay.

Q    I’ve been saving them up.  First of all, Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said last night that, “It is clear we are going to take the House back.”  Do you think he’s probably right about that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, based on what we know as — as of today, we’ve — we’ve lost very few seats for certain.  We still have a possibility of keeping the House, but it’s going to be close.  And — for example, in Nevada, we won all three of those seats — contested seats.  I went out for each, and I spoke with each — for each of those folks.  But we won them all.  I didn’t know that last night. 

So it’s a moving target right now, but it’s going to be very close.

Q    Can you — can you describe your relationship with Mr. McCarthy?  How often do you speak to him?  What do you think of him?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think he’s the Republican Leader, and I haven’t had much of occasion to talk to him.  But I will be talking to him.  I think — I think I’m talking to him later today.

Q    When it comes to your legislative agenda — when you were Vice President, your legislative agenda basically ran into a brick wall two years in when Republicans took control of the House, and that lasted for the rest of the Obama presidency.  Is there any way for you to prevent that same fate from happening this time around —

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

Q    — if Republicans take control of the House?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, because it’s going to be much closer if they take control.

Look, the predictions were — and again, I’m not being critical of anybody who made the predictions.  I got it, okay?  This was supposed to be a red wave.  You guys — you were talking about us losing 30 to 50 seats and this was going to — we’re nowhere near — that’s not going to happen.  And so, there’s always enough people in the — on the other team, whether it’s Democrat or Republican, that the opposite party can make an appeal to and maybe pick them off to get the help.  And — and so it remains to be seen.

But, look, I doubt whether or not — for example, all the talk — I’d ask the rhet- — I don’t expect you to answer, but the rhetorical question: Do you think that, you know, Senator Johnson is going to move to cut Medicare and Social Security?  And if he does, how many Republicans do you think are going to vote for it?  

So, it depends.

Q    And then, my — my final question.  (Laughs.)  Republicans have made it clear that if they do take control of the House, that they want to launch a raft of investigations on day one into your handling of Afghanistan, the border.  They want to look into some of your Cabinet officials.  They want to investigate you.  They may even want to investigate your son.  What’s your message to Republicans who are considering investigating your family and, particularly, your son Hunter’s business dealings?

THE PRESIDENT:  “Lots of luck in your senior year,” as my coach used to say.

Look, I think the American public want us to move on and get things done for them.  And, you know, I heard that there were — it was reported — whether it’s accurate or not, I’m not sure — but it was reported many times that Republicans were saying, and the former President said, “How many times are you going to impeach Biden?”  You know, impeachment proceedings against Bi- —

I mean, I think the — I think the American people will look at all of that for what it is.  It’s just almost comedy.  I mean, it’s — but, you know, look, I can’t control what they’re going to do.  All I can do is continue to try to make life better for the American people.

Okay.  Phil.  Phil Mattingly, CNN.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have 37 ques- — I’m kidding.  (Laughter.)  

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)

Q    Sir, at a fundraiser last month, you said, quote, “The rest of the world is looking at this election…both the good guys and the bad guys.”  You noted you’re going to G20 in a couple days.  You’ll come face to face with many of those leaders at the same moment that your predecessor is considering launching his reelection effort.  How should those world leaders, both good guys and bad guys, view this moment both for America and for your presidency?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, these world leaders know we’re doing better than anybody else in the world, as a practical matter.  Notwithstanding the difficulties we have, our economy is growing.  You saw the last report; we’re still growing at 2.6 percent.  We’re creating jobs.  We’re still in a solid position.  And there’s not many other countries in the world that are in that position.

And I promise you, from the telephone calls I still have and from the meetings I have with other heads of state, they’re looking to the United States and saying, “How are you doing?  And what are you doing?  What can we do together?  How…”

So I think that the vast majority of my colleagues — at least those colleagues who are NATO members — European Union, Japan, South Korea, et cetera — I think they’re looking to cooperate and wanting to know how — how we can help one another.

And what was the other question?

Q    (Inaudible) I hadn’t asked it yet.

THE PRESIDENT:   Oh, I’m sorry.

Q    No, no, no.  So, I think the — one way to follow up on that is you noted that you felt like there was a shift in terms of people being willing to show more decency in this moment.  You’ve often talked about breaking the fever or kind of a transition from this moment that we faced over the last several years.  Do you feel like the election is what represents that?  Do you feel like the fever has broken, I guess?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’m not — I don’t think we’re going to break the fever for the super mega MAGA Republicans.  I mean — but I think they’re a minority of the Republican Party.  I think the vast majority of the members of the Republican Party, we disagree strongly on issues but they’re decent, honorable people.  We have differe- — differences of agreement on — on issues. 

     But they — you know, I — I worked with a lot of these folks in the Senate and the House for a long time.  And, you know, they — they’re — they’re honest, and they’re — and they’re straightforward.  They’re different than mine, but they’re — you know, they’re — they’re decent folks. 

And so, I think that the rest of the world — and a lot of you have covered other parts of the world, and you know — the rest of the world is looking at the United States.  I guess the best way to say this is to — is to repeat what you’ve — some — some of you’ve heard me say before.

The first G7 meeting — for the public, that’s the — the seven largest democracies — when I went to — right after we got elected, in February, after I got sworn in in January.  And I sat down at a table — a roundtable with the six other world leaders from the European Union, the United — and — and Canada, et cetera, and said, “America is back.”  And one of them turned to me and said, “For how long?  For how long?”  It was a deadly earnest question: “For how long?” 

And I looked at them.  And then another one went on to say — and I’m not going to name them — went on to say, “What would you say, Joe, if, in fact, you went — we went to bed tonight here in — in England, woke up the next morning and found out that thousands of people had stormed the parliament of — of Great Britain — gone down the hall, broken down the doors, two cops ended up dying, a number of people injured, and they tried to stop the co- — the confirmation of an election?”  It’s not the same situation, obviously, as we have.  And he said, “What would you think?”

     And what — I ask a rhetorical question: What would you all think?  You’d think England was really in trouble.  You’d think democracy was on the edge if that happened in Great Britain. 

And so, that’s the way people were looking at us, like, “When is this going to stop?”  Nothing like this has happened since the Civil War.  I don’t want to exaggerate.  But literally, nothing like this has happened since the Civil War. 

And so, what I find is that they want to know: Is the United States stable?  Do we know what we’re about?  Are we the same democracy we’ve always been? 

Because, look, the rest of the world looks to us — I don’t mean that we’re always — like we’re always right.  But if the United States tomorrow were to, quote, “withdraw from the world,” a lot of things would change around the world.  A whole lot would change. 

And so, they’re very concerned that we are still the open democracy we’ve been and that we have rules and the institutions matter.  And that’s the context in which I think that they’re looking at: Are we back to a place where we are going to accept decisions made by the Court, by the Congress, by the government, et cetera? 

Q    So the entire genesis of that G7 conversation was tied to your predecessor, who is about to launch another campaign.  So how do you reassure them, if that is the reason for their questioning, that the former President will not return or that his political movement, which is still very strong, will not —

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, yeah?  (Laughs.)  

Q    — once again take power in the United States?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we just have to demonstrate that he will not take power by — if we — if he does run.  I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.

Q    Thanks.

THE PRESIDENT:  Steve, Reuters.  I’m sorry.  Steve Holland.

Q    Thank you, sir.  How do you interpret last night’s results in terms of deciding whether you want to seek another term?  Is it now more likely that you will run?  And what’s going to be your timeline for consideration?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, Jill and I have — and by the way, this is my wife, Jill — (laughter) — who’s a hell of a lot more popular than I am in the Democratic Party, too. 

But at any rate, all kidding aside, our — our intention is to run again.  That’s been our intention, regardless of what the outcome of this election was.  And the fact that we won — we — I didn’t run — the fact that the Democratic Party outperformed anything anyone expected and did better than any off-year presidency since John Kennedy is one that gives everybody, like, “Hoo” — sigh of relief — that the mega Republicans are not taking over the government again, et cetera. 

And so, my judgment of running, when I announce — if I annou- — now, my intention is that I run again.  But I’m a great respecter of fate.  And this is, ultimately, a family decision.  I think everybody wants me to run, but they’re go- — we’re going to have discussions about it.  And I don’t feel any — any hurry one way or another what — to — to make that judgment today, tomorrow, whenever, no matter what the — my predecessor does.

Q    By end of the year or early next year?  Or what’s your — what’s you’re thinking?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I — my guess is — I hope Jill and I get a little time to actually sneak away for a week around — between Christmas and Thanksgiving.  (Laughs.)  And my guess is it would be early next year we make that judgment.

Q    Thanks. 

THE PRESIDENT:  But it is my plan to do it now.  I mean, but — you know. 

Okay, I’m sorry.  Karen.  Karen Travers of ABC Radio.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  WNBA star Brittney Griner today was moved to a Russian penal colony to serve out her nine-year sentence.  Do you have an update right now on her condition?  What do you know about that?  And does this mark a new phase in negotiations with the Russians to secure her release?  Can the U.S. now fully engage in talks on a prisoner swap?  

And then a follow-up, if I can. 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we’ve been — we’ve been engaging on a regular basis.  I’ve been — I’ve been spending a fair amount of time with — with her wife about what’s going on with her. 

And my guess is — my hope is that now that the election is over, that Mr. Putin will be able to discuss with us and be willing to talk more seriously about a prisoner exchange. 

That is my intention.  My intention is to get her home.  And we’ve had a number of discussions so far.  And I’m hopeful that, now that our election is over, there is a willingness to — to negotiate more specifically with us. 

Q    And, if I can, your Press Secretary had said that the U.S. government has continued to follow up on that significant offer but also had proposed “alternative potential ways forward” with the Russians.  Can you tell us what those “alternative ways forward” are and how Russia has responded to those? 

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, I can, but I won’t.  Okay, I can’t — I mean, you know, it would — it would not be a wise thing to do in order to see if they would move forward. 

But it is my — I’m telling you, I am determined to get her home and get her home safely — along with others, I might add.

April Ryan. 

Q    Of TheGrio.      THE PRESIDENT:  Of TheGrio.  Excuse me.  I beg your pardon. 

Q    (Laughs.)  Thank you, sir.      THE PRESIDENT:  I got it right last time we did this.      Q    Yes, you did.  Yes, you did.      Mr. President, I have a couple of questions on several issues.  One, the Supreme Court.  As you know, the Supreme Court has before it the issue of college admissions and affirmative action.  What can and are you planning in case of a rollback that is expected?      There are legal analysts that say that there will be drastic implications, there are tentacles from this, and they even say that this can impact Brown v. Board — the decision from Brown v. Board.      THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you know, first of all, I asked our Justice Department to defend the present policy before the Supreme Court.  And like a lot of pundits, I’m not prepared to believe that the Supreme Court is going to overrule the pre- — the existing decision.  That’s far from certain.  And I don’t be- — I don’t believe that.      But number one — so, number one, what I did to try to change it is object to it before the Supreme Court of the United States — our administration.      Number two, I — there are a number of things that we can and must do to make it — and, by the way, this is a case involving an Asian American, in terms of getting into school, and whether there’s affirmative action makes sense at all from the standpoint of those who are arguing against it.      But, you know, the fact is that we’re — we’re also in a circumstance where there’s a lot that we can do in the meantime to make sure that there’s an access to good education across the board.  And that is by doing things that relate to starting education at age three — formal schooling at age three — which it increases — not daycare, but school.  All the studies over 10 years show that that increases the prospect of someone making it through 12 years without any difficulty, no matter what the background they come from, by 56 percent.  

And I also think that we should be making sure that we have the ability to provide for two years of education beyond that, whether it’s apprenticeships or community colleges.      And we also are in a situation where I think that — for example, I want to make sure we — a lot of it has to do with finances as well — that we make sure that we have help for people who come from modest means to be able to get to school.      You know, the cost of college education has increased fourfold.  And it used to be that a Pell Grant would cover something like 70 percent of the college tuition.  Now it covers significantly less than that.  So I want to increase the Pell Grants as well.      But let’s see what the Supreme Court decides.  And I’m — I am hopeful.  And our team and our — the lawyers who argued for us are not nearly as certain as the people you quoted as saying it’s going to be overruled.

Q    Next question, sir.  The issue is inflation.  TheGrio and KFF conducted a study of Black voters that said inflation was the number one issue, and we saw it in this midterm election.      What can you promise concretely in these next two years that will help turn the pocketbook for the better in the midst of staving off a recession?      THE PRESIDENT:  Well, a number of things.  First of all, un- — Black unemployment is almost cut in half under my administration just since I began.  More Black businesses have opened up — small businesses — than ever before.      We’re now in a situation where we’re providing, through the Small Business Administration, down payments for people buying homes, because most people accumulate wealth in the value of their home, most middle-class families like mine.  My dad bought a home, didn’t have — just scraped together to get a home.  By the time he was able to retire, he was — he had built up equity in a home.  That’s how most people do that.      And so — but what I can’t do is I can’t guarantee that we’re going to be able to get rid of inflation, but I do think we can.      We brought — we’ve already brought down the price of gasoline about $1.20 a gallon across the board.  And I think that the — the — the — the oil companies are really doing the nation a real disservice.      They’ve made — six of them made over $100 billion in the last quarter in profit.  A hundred billion dollars.      In the past, if they had done the two things that they had done before — one, invest in more refineries and producing more product and/or passing on the rebates to the gas stations that — you know, they sell the oil at a cheaper rate than they have to — than they are selling it now, not taking advantage.  And that lowers the price of the total gallon of gas because that gets passed on.      So there’s a whole lot of things that we can do that are — that are difficult to do, but we’re going to continue to push to do them.      And the other thing is that one of the things that makes a gigantic difference is what are the costs that exist in the average family and the average Black community.  One, prescription drug costs.  Well, we’re driving those down precipitously, beginning next year.      And, you know, I’ll bet you know a lot of people in the African American and — and Caucasian community that — that need to take insulin for diabetes.  Well, we’re going to reduce that cost.  They’re not going to pay more than $35 for the insulin instead of four- — average of $400.      And I can go down the list of the things that — my dad used to say it a different way.  At the end of the month, the things you have to pay for, from your mortgage to food on the table to gasoline in the automobile, do you have enough money to do it?  And when it’s done, do you have anything left over?  And medical bills are a big piece of that, particularly in the African American community and the poor — and poorer communities.  They need help.      And so we’re driving down all of those costs.  And we’ve already passed the legislation to do that; it’s just taking effect.      So there’s a lot of things we can do to affect the things that people need on a monthly basis to reduce their inflation, their cost of living. 

And so — but I am optimistic, because we continue to grow and at a rational pace, we’re not anywhere near a recession right now, in terms of the growth.  But I think we can have what most economists call a “soft landing.”  I’m convinced that we’re going to be able to gradually bring down prices so that they, in fact, end up with us not having to move into a recession to be able to get control of inflation.      Q    And, Mr. President, last question on humanity.  I know, everybody else got some.           Q    Not everybody else.      Q    Well, you’re coming.      THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, go ahead.

Q    Last question on humanity.  Sir, you can’t legislate and you can’t executive order out the issue of empathy or the lack thereof in the midst of this rhetoric — this heated political rhetoric.  What’s next?      THE PRESIDENT:  Part of what I think leadership requires — and I hope I meet the standard — is letting people know you understand their problem.

Again, my dad used to have an expression.  He said, “I don’t expect the government to solve my problems, but I expect them to at least know what they are, understand them.”      And like a lot of you, we’ve been very fortunate as a family, but we’ve also been through a lot of fairly tough times.  And it’s not — and I’ve had the great advantage of having a family to get through them.

When my first wife and daughter were killed when a tractor trailer broadsided them and killed my wife and — killed my — my first wife and killed my daughter, and my two boys were expected to die; they were in the — it took the Jaws of Life three hours to get them out.  They were on top of their dead mother and dead sister.

I understand what that pain is like.      And when Jill and I lost Beau after a year in Iraq, winning the Bronze Star and Conspicuous Service Medal, a major in the United States military, came home with Stage 4 glioblastoma because he lived about 200, 5- — between 2- and 500 yards from burn pit that’s 10 feet deep and as big as a football field, burning every toxic waste you could find.

You know, I think that we — we understand what it’s like to lose family members, mothers, fathers, to can- — all of you have been through that kind of thing.      We’ve been fortunate, though.  We’ve had each other.  We’ve had strong families — Jill’s sisters, my brothers, my sister.       And so what we can do to deal with that empathy is make sure there’s help available, make sure there’s people who are there to help — whether they are a psychologist or whether they’re medical doctors or whether they’re social workers — to be there to help, to help just hold a hand.      And, for example, we can do an awful lot for a lot of families, the families you’re talking about, if we re- — reinstate this Child Tax Credit.  It cut child poverty by 40 percent when it was in place.  I couldn’t get it passed the second time around.      So there’s a lot we can do.  And the empathy is not just talking about it, it’s communicating to people you genuinely understand.  And I hope a lot of people don’t understand, because they — I don’t want people having to know the pain.       But the second piece of that is: Let them know that you are there to help.  You’re there to help.

And one of the things I’ve talked with Vivek Murthy about — and a lot of you have written about it, and you’ve written it well about it — is the need for mental health care in America.  You know, when we got elected, there were something like, I don’t know, 2-, 3-, 5 million people who had gotten their — their COVID shots.

Well, in the meantime — I’ve got over 220 million people all three shots.  But in the meantime, what happened?  We lost over a million dead.  A million dead. 

I read one study that for those million people, they had nine people who were — each one of them had, on average, nine people close to them.  A relative, someone they’re married to, a child — someone close. 

The impact has been profound.  It’s been profound.  Think of all the people — think of all your children or your grandchildren who didn’t have that senior prom, who didn’t have that graduation party, who didn’t have all the things we had that we took for granted — the impact on their psyche.

So, there’s a lot we have to do.  And empathy reflects itself not just on what a person demonstrates they understand — of knowing what people need and helping to make it happen.  And we’re trying to do that.  And a lot of Republicans are trying to do it, too.  I don’t mean this is a partisan thing.  A lot of people are trying to do it because they know we got a problem.

Okay, excuse me.  These 10 questions are really going quickly.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Stick around for more.

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Well, I’ve got to meet with some of my — talk to some of the Republican leadership soon.  But — anyway. 

Jenny Leonard, Bloomberg.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Two questions.  One, shifting back to your trip to Asia.  When you meet with President Xi Jinping of China, will you tell him that you’re committed to defending Taiwan militarily?  And what are you hoping to get out of this meeting that will make it a success?  Are you willing to make any concessions to him?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, I’m not — I’m not willing to make any fundamental concessions because what I — what I’ve told him in the beginning — and this is — we’ve — I’ve spent over 78, I think they told me, hours with him so far — 67 in person, when I was Vice President. 

President Obama knew he couldn’t spend time with the Vice President of another country, so I traveled 17,000 miles with them in China and around — and the United States.  I’ve met with him many times. 

And I’ve told him: I’m looking for competition, not — not conflict. 

And so what I want to do with him when we talk is lay out what the — what kind of — what each of our red lines are, understand what he believes to be in the critical national interests of China, what I know to be the critical interests of the United States, and to determine whether or not they conflict with one another.  And if they do, how to resolve it and how to work it out.

And so — and the Taiwan doctrine has not changed at all from the very beginning — the very beginning.  So, I’m sure we’ll discuss China — excuse me, Taiwan.  And I’m sure we’ll discuss a number of other issues, including fair trade and — and rela- — relationships relating to his relationship with other countries in the region. 

And — and so, anyway.  So there’s a lot we’re going to have to discuss.

Do you want another question?

Q    Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:  Everybody else got one.

Q    You didn’t say if —

THE PRESIDENT:  Or two or three.

Q    You didn’t say if you will tell Xi Jinping personally that you are committed to defending Taiwan.

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m going to have that conversation with him.

Q    That wasn’t my second one, sorry.  (Laughter.) 

Sorry, I actually have an unrelated question too.  Mr. President, do you think Elon Musk is a threat to U.S. national security?  And should the U.S. — and with the tools you have — investigate his joint acquisition of Twitter with foreign governments, which include the Saudis?

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  I think that Elon Musk’s cooperation and/or technical relationships with other countries is worthy of being looked at.  Whether or not he is doing anything inappropriate, I’m not suggesting that.  I’m suggesting that it wor- — worth being looked at.  And — and — but that’s all I’ll say.

Q    How?

THE PRESIDENT:  There’s a lot of ways.

All right.  Kristen.  Kristen Welker.  

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much, Mr. President.  I appreciate it. 

I want to follow up with you on working with Republicans.  Leader McCarthy again suggested that he is not prepared to write what he has called a “blank check” to Ukraine.  And yet, you expressed optimism that funding for Ukraine would continue, that the policies toward Ukraine would continue.  Why should the people of Ukraine and this country have confidence in that, given the comments by Leader McCarthy?

And just to follow up with you on your comments to Zeke, you said you don’t need to do anything differently.  If Republicans control the House, don’t you need to recalibrate, to some extent, to try to work across the aisle with a Republican-led House?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me put it this way.  What I meant was: I don’t have to change any of the policies that have already passed.  That’s what they said they want to go after.

And so, what I have is a simple proposition: I have a pen that can veto.  Okay?  So, that’s what I mean.  I don’t have to recalibrate whether or not I’m going to continue to, you know, fund the — we’re going to continue to fund the infrastructure bill or we’re going to continue to fund the environment, et cetera.

What — we have to — I hope — I think there’s a growing pressure, on the part of the American people, expecting both parties and all elements of both parties to — to work out their substantive differences and not just, “I’m not going to do that because it would benefit that party.”  Just make it — make it personal. 

So, I — and, you know, it remains to be seen what the makeup of the House will be.  But I’m hopeful that Kevin and I can work out a modus vivendi as to how we’ll proceed with one another.

Q    So, will aid to Ukraine continue uninterrupted?

THE PRESIDENT:  That is my expectation.  And, by the way, we’ve not given Ukraine a blank check.  There’s a lot of things that Ukraine wants we didn’t — we didn’t do.

For example, I was asked very much whether we prefe- — we’d provide American aircraft to guarantee the skies over Ukraine.  I said, “No, we’re not going to do that.  We’re not going to get into a third world war, taking on Russian aircraft and directly engage.”  But would we provide them with all — the rational ability to defend themselves?  Yes. 

We provide those HIMARS.  Well, the HIMARS — there’s two kinds of, in the average person’s parlance, rockets you can drop in those: one that goes over 600 miles and one that goes about 160 miles.  We didn’t give them any ones that go to 600 miles, because I’m not looking for them to start bombing Russian territory.

And so, we want to make sure that there’s a relationship that they’re able to defend themselves and take on what is purely a — a — the ugliest aggression that’s occurred since World War Two on a massive scale, on the part of Putin, within Ukraine.  And there’s so much at stake.

So, I would be surprised if — if Leader McCarthy even has a majority of his Republican colleagues who say they’re not going to fund the legitimate defensive needs of Ukraine.

Q    And just quick one.  Obviously, a lot of attention on 2024 now that the votes have been cast in the midterms.  Two thirds of Americans in exit polls say that they don’t think you should run for reelection.  What is your message to them?  And how does that factor into your final decision about whether or not to run for reelection?

THE PRESIDENT:  It doesn’t. 

Q    What’s your message to them — to those two thirds of Americans?

THE PRESIDENT:  Watch me.  (Laughter.)

Q    Okay.  One more.  (Laughter.)  Very quickly.  You saw Governor Ron DeSantis with a resounding victory in Florida last night.  Who do you think would be the tougher competitor: Ron DeSantis or former President Trump?  And how is that factoring into your decision?

THE PRESIDENT:  It’d be fun watching them take on each other.  (Laughter.)

All right.  David Sanger.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I also have a question for you about China.  But before I do, I just wanted to follow up on something you said earlier when you said “it remains to be seen whether” the Ukraine government “is prepared to compromise with Russia.”  Previously, you’ve told us the only thing for the Russians to do is get completely out of Ukraine, go back to the — the lines that existed prior to February 24.  Are you suggesting with the word “compromise,” that you think that there is room for territorial compromise now?  That —

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I’m not say- — that’s up to the Ukrainians.  Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. 

Q    But what kind of compromise do you have in mind?

THE PRESIDENT:  I didn’t have any in mind.  You have asked the question whether or not, if I recall — whether or not — what would happen if, in fact, after the — this — I think the context is that whether or not they’re pulling back from Fallujah.  And the — I mean, from the —

Q    Kherson.

THE PRESIDENT:  Kherson.  The — the city of Kherson.  And they’re coming back across the river to the eastern side of the river — the Russian forces.  And I said what’s going to happen is they’re going to both lick their wounds, decide whether — what they’re going to do over the winter, and decide whether or not they’re going to compromise. 

That’s — that’s what’s going to happen, whether or not.  I don’t know what they’re going to do.  And — but I do know one thing: We’re not going to tell them what they have to do. 

Q    You were asked before about the — your meeting with President Xi.  At this point, the Chinese government, by the estimate of the Pentagon, is getting ready to bring their force of nuclear weapons up to over 1,000 weapons.  Significant increase from what they’ve had for many decades.  You’ve seen the threats from President Putin about the use of his nuclear forces —

THE PRESIDENT:  Remember how you all went after him when I said that was real? 

Q    And what — what, in your view, happened?  Do you think he — he backed off because of that, (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, I’m just saying.  I just — I just found it interesting that, “Biden is being apop- — apoc- –acop- — Biden is being extremist.”  And — and it turns out you all are writing about it now.  Kind of fascinating.

Q    So my question is: Do you think that they are putting together a real alliance, the Chinese and the Russians?  And do you believe that you need to begin speaking with President Xi about some form of arms control if he’s going to get up to a level of weapons similar to what the United States and Russia have right now?

THE PRESIDENT:  No and yes.  No, I don’t think there’s a lot of respect that China has for Russia or for Putin.  I don’t think they’re looking at it as a particular alliance.  Matter of fact, they’ve been sort of keeping their distance a little bit.

I do think that it remains to be seen whether Xi Jinping has decided that — or backed off of his initial judgment that he wanted Ukrai- — excuse me, China to have the most powerful military in the world, as well as the largest economy. 

And — but he’s a long way from both.  But I think — I think — talk about nuclear weapons and location and the number of them and access is important to discuss. 

Thank you all so very, very much. 

(Cross-talk by reporters.)

Thank you very, very much.  We’ll do another — we’ll do another hour a little later.  Thank you so much.  (Laughter.)  Thank you.  

                        END                  5:08 P.M. EST

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

What makes a great political speech? Let’s talk about oratory, my fellow citizens

The leader must be willing to go beyond party politics, and demonstrate humanity, candour and raw emotion

Of all the millions of words uttered on the hustings during this unedifying federal election campaign, few, if any, will be remembered as having soared to any great oratory heights.

These days election stump speeches tend to be quickly devoured in the voracious churn of the perpetual news cycle, and largely parsed in disconnected chunks for their strategic and market-tested messaging rather than their cadences and artistry.

Most of the party leaders’ transcribed speeches – and those of ministers and shadow ministers – are readily available. But few beyond pundits and political tragics would seek them out and read them for their craft or evocation of emotion.

Sometimes a line or two from a leader’s campaign speech resonates – or echoes – to perhaps evoke something of a more optimistic, inspirational political epoch. So it was during Anthony Albanese’s campaign launch a couple of weeks ago, when my attention shifted from an AFL match on my laptop screen to the TV as the Labor leader was speaking .

It was three words: “My fellow Australians.”

I started paying attention.

The echo in my memory said: “My fellow citizens.” It was the voice of Gough Whitlam and the line was from his 1972 Blacktown campaign launch , a speech regarded as one of the more memorable in the pantheon of Australian election orations, and exceptional even by Whitlam’s standards.

In this speech Whitlam three times referred to “fellow citizens” and, a recent reading reminds me, he also emphatically referenced “my fellow Australians” towards the end. These repeated words set something of the rhetorical pace of this Whitlam stump speech. Just as Albanese’s repetition of “my fellow Australians” (he said it, with careful measure, seven times) set the meter of his speech, perhaps with the intent of evoking the anticipation and “it’s time” optimism of 1972.

Structurally Albanese’s speech was not entirely dissimilar to Whitlam’s half a century ago (but don’t get me wrong; the former does not have the captivating oratory power of the latter).

Sean Scalmer, a historian at the University of Melbourne and author of On the Stump – a book about campaign oratory in Australia, US and Britain – says the 1972 Whitlam speech is powerful and memorable because of its direct, down to earth appeal to its audience, as if he is speaking with equals, rather than down to them.

“Whitlam [spoke] about all the things that he said that his government would want to do. And then at one point, part way through the speech, he sort of pauses and he says, ‘I need your help’,” Scalmer recently told the Seriously Social podcast .

“He invites the participation, the enthusiasm, and of course the votes of those who are listening to him. So I think that idea that a speech is not a delivery of wisdom from on high, but rather is inviting a response or reciprocation from the audience, is enormously important to an effective political speech.”

Whitlam, with whom humility was not necessarily synonymous, was socially and politically equalising himself with the audience with the repeated mention of his fellow citizens. He was inviting them to share the space and the ride. Albanese may not be a Whitlam-esque orator. But he sure knows Labor history.

For the most part, in Australia at least, there are probably better and more memorable political speeches that were delivered outside of a campaign context. A few years ago, together with the playwright Katie Pollock, I co-wrote two plays – The Hansard Monologues – based entirely (don’t yawn) on Hansard.

As someone who’d watched parliament professionally for many years, the dramatic and occasionally comic potential was no surprise. It was rich pickings. The challenge lay in what to omit (our first drafts were many tens of thousands of words!).

What made a great parliamentary speech was entirely different to what made an effective election stump oratory, although they sometimes shared similar characteristics. That is, a willingness – or impulse – to speak beyond the confines of party politics, to demonstrate humanity, candour and raw natural emotion.

Perhaps the top two speeches in the house in the parliaments covered by The Hansard Monologues are then prime minister Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech and then putative prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s condolence speech for Robert Hughes.

(Meanwhile, the most extraordinary speeches I heard from all corners of the parliament were delivered on 19 June 2000, when distressed MPs lamented the suicide of the Labor MP Greg Wilton . The emotion was palpable, the honesty raw, disarming – even distressing. One of the most moving one was delivered by Tony Abbott . The words were spoken with tears and brittle sentiment as members and senators decried the brutality of politics and called for a more human and caring politics. Incidentally, the very next day was one of the most viscerally ugly and partisan in recent memory!)

Paul Keating’s Redfern speech , followed closely perhaps by his speech for the unknown soldier , were exemplars of a politician’s powerful oratory delivered away from an election and parliament.

It seems authenticity – a trait that can desert a politician who is too tightly controlled or overly-cautious – is everything when it comes to political stump speeches.

“I think you see that ... [with] leaders who are often … good communicators before they take on the highest office. I’m thinking of Julia Gillard and Malcolm Turnbull,” Sean Scalmer says.

“When they weren’t prime minister … they were seen to be more authentic, more honest, more persuasive. And then immediately when they became prime minister they seemed to be stilted, controlled and all of the things that people react against.”

He points out that until the late 19th century political “stumping” in Australia and Britain were often viewed as gauche and tasteless. Charles Gavan Duffy , a radical Irishman who became premier of colonial Victoria, started making stump speeches all over the state to shore up his position.

“He’s accused of importing American methods. So, this method doesn’t help him to stay in power, but what it does is it encourages his treasurer, Graham Berry. And it’s Graham Berry, about four years later, who then begins to use the stump speech to try and build up a mass political party,” Scalmer says.

“And all around Australia people are watching what Berry’s doing. And in other colonies, they say, ‘well, we have to adopt these methods too, even if we think they’re a bit distasteful’.”

• Australian politics
• Australian election 2022
• Anthony Albanese
• Scott Morrison

Most viewed

• Yale Directories

Institution for Social and Policy Studies

Advancing research • shaping policy • developing leaders, when and why are campaigns’ persuasive effects small evidence from the 2020 u.s. presidential election.

David E. Broockman and Joshua L. Kalla

Link to article here (gated), pre-print here (ungated).

The data and materials required to verify the computational reproducibility of the results, procedures, and analyses in this article are available on the American Journal of Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LLPKNG .

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

Political Speech Writing: How Candidates Can Craft Compelling Messages

Understanding the Power of Political Speeches

Political speeches play a pivotal role in shaping the course of nations and can shape the trajectory of societies. Effective speech writing for elections allows leaders to communicate their vision, values, and policy objectives to the public. These speeches serve as a means of persuasion, providing a platform for leaders to connect with their constituents emotionally. Through carefully tailoring speeches, a political oratory has the potential to inspire, mobilize, and unite people around common goals and ideals.

One key aspect of political speeches is their ability to inform and educate the public. In a democratic society, an informed citizenry is essential for making sound election decisions and understanding government policy implications. A well-done political oratory allows leaders to clarify their positions and present evidence and data. Speechwriting for elections often requires addressing complex issues and helping citizens make informed choices about how they want the country to move. Moreover, political speeches serve as a channel for transparency and accountability.

Beyond their informational role, a well-crafted political oratory fosters unity and social cohesion by containing messages of hope, unity and inclusivity. They can transcend political divides and unite people, transcending differences of opinion and background. In times of crisis or uncertainty, campaign speeches provide reassurance and a sense of purpose. Furthermore, campaign speeches help a nation navigate challenges and emerge stronger.

Well-crafted campaign speeches can be transformative in elections by serving as a dynamic tool for candidates to connect with voters, sway public opinion and ultimately change the outcome of an election. When a candidate speaks passionately about issues that resonate with your audience, it creates a sense of trust and authenticity by tapping into the electorate's hopes, fears, and aspirations.

Speechwriting for elections helps to clarify a candidate's policy positions and goals, providing voters with a clearer understanding of what they stand for, allowing them to set themselves apart from their opponents and creating a sense of confidence in their leadership. A well-crafted political speech can sway undecided voters to the candidate's side.

Rousing persuasive communication can galvanize volunteers and grassroots activists , encouraging them to work harder for the candidate, leading to a higher voter turnout among the candidate's base.

Steps to Effective Political Speechwriting

Here are five tips for crafting an effective political speech:

#1: Make time for research.

Digging deep to find relevant information is crucial when writing a political speech because it adds depth and credibility to the discourse. Great research also ensures that the political speech addresses the complexities of voters' concerns. A speechwriter can write informative and persuasive communication by seeking out comprehensive data.

#2: Consider your audience.

Analyzing a target audience is essential for understanding their demographics, values, beliefs, and concerns. It allows speechwriters to tailor their message to resonate with their intended listeners' specific needs and interests. This analysis enables speechwriters to speak directly to the heart of the issues that matter most to the target audience. It also helps avoid potential pitfalls, such as using language or framing that might alienate or offend specific target audience segments.

Free tools to power your campaign

#3: Draw on the elements of storytelling.

Storytelling in politics is essential for political speechwriters because it helps engage and persuade the audience effectively. Furthermore, storytelling in politics captures the audience's attention by connecting them emotionally with the message. The right message provides a relatable and human dimension to the content. Furthermore, storytelling in politics helps create a cohesive speech that flows seamlessly, ensuring listeners understand and retain key points. Whether it is rallying support for a candidate, advocating for a policy change, or fostering a sense of unity, a well-crafted narrative can convey a compelling vision for the future and ignite a sense of purpose among the audience.

#4: Set the right tone.

A campaign speech must set the right mood because the emotional tone and atmosphere it creates can significantly impact how the audience receives and responds to the message. By establishing a positive and receptive attitude, the audience is more likely to be engaged and attentive to the speaker's message, which can inspire hope, rally support, and forge meaningful connections. Crafting a political speech that is positive and relatable makes the audience more receptive to the speaker's arguments, so it is a vital political communication strategy. A speech promoting a mood of unity helps to bridge divides, bringing people together.

#5: Edit and practice ahead of time.

Editing and rehearsing a political speech is essential because it ensures the message is clear, concise and free from ambiguity. A well-edited speech enhances the speaker's credibility by demonstrating that the candidate has thoroughly researched and prepared their remarks. Therefore, giving speeches can be a key political communication strategy.

Practicing a speech allows the speaker to fine-tune their delivery and tone to maintain the audience's engagement. Furthermore, practice enables the speaker to reinforce the critical points of the speech, ensuring that they communicate central ideas in an easily memorable way.

Examples of Memorable Political Speeches

Let's turn our attention to some political speechwriting examples. These political speechwriting examples can serve as a powerful guide for candidates.

#1: Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

Consider Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, as it is one of American history's most impactful political speeches. Presented during the Civil War at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the speech was concise, lasting just over two minutes, but its impact was profound. Lincoln eloquently emphasized the principles of equality and liberty and redefined the purpose of the American government as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." This speech solidified the United States' commitment to democracy and freedom. It also marked a turning point in the Civil War, as it galvanized public sentiment and reinvigorated the Union's resolve to preserve the nation.

#2: Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” Speech

Another of the most impactful political speeches was Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, delivered during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. This political speechwriting example was pivotal in the American civil rights movement. King's eloquent articulation of his dream for a racially integrated and just society resonated deeply with millions. The speech helped mobilize support for civil rights legislation and highlighted the urgent need for racial equality. King's call for nonviolent protest and his vision for a future where individuals would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin inspired generations of activists. It was crucial in advancing civil rights legislation, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

#3: Ronald Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” Speech

One of the most impactful political speeches ever given was the one delivered at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, during which President Ronald Reagan issued a powerful challenge to the Soviet Union by demanding, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The Berlin Wall, which had divided East and West Berlin for decades, symbolized the Cold War's division. This political speechwriting example indicated the West's commitment to freedom and democracy. While the immediate impact of the speech was limited, it contributed to the eventual fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. Reagan's words resonated with people on both sides of the Iron Curtain, serving as a rallying cry for change.

Studying these speeches and tailoring speeches after them and other iconic speeches is a great way to learn public speaking strategies. These American political speeches share the theme of advocating for equality, justice and freedom. They transcended their immediate contexts to become lasting symbols of American ideals and continue inspiring generations of Americans and people worldwide. 

Here are some public speaking strategies to employ based on these inspirational speeches:

Ensure that the central theme of your political campaign communication resonates with the target audience and keep it at the forefront of the speech.

Using metaphors, similes, and emotionally resonant phrases to evoke powerful imagery and emotions in the audience is a critical speech delivery technique that can help your political campaign communications.

Understanding the audience's needs, aspirations, and concerns so that the message connects deeply is a speechwriting best practice you will want to remember.

Incorporating a clear and compelling call to action into the speech is an essential political communication strategy.

Be aware of historical contexts when crafting political persuasions for political campaign communications.

Align messages with the speaker's personality and values.

Employ strategic repetition to emphasize critical political persuasions because it will make them more memorable.

Use speech writing techniques to capture the speaker's authentic voice and beliefs.

Tips for Effective Speech Delivery

Candidates often ask speechwriters to give them speech delivery techniques. They may recommend several public speaking strategies that will help you with effective speech delivery. These include:

Using body gestures and body language to enhance the message's impact is a critical speech delivery technique as it helps convey confidence and credibility so that the audience connects to you better.

Connecting with the audience is paramount because it establishes rapport, fosters voter engagement and ensures the message resonates with the listeners personally. Therefore, it is crucial to remember this idea while focusing on speech delivery techniques as you build your political communication strategy.

Breathing deeply right before giving a speech is a vital speech delivery technique that can help you overcome stage fright as it calms nerves and boosts confidence.

Adapting Your Speech for Different Audiences

Among speech writing best practices is to adapt a speech to different audiences and your audience's demographics. This is essential for ensuring political persuasion as the message is relevant, relatable, and inclusive. Practicing this as you concentrate on other speech writing best practices ensures audience engagement occurs and that they will understand your messaging better.

Another key among speech writing best practices is remembering to be specific during a speech. This is vital as it adds credibility and clarity to the candidate messaging, helping to ensure audience engagement. Therefore, ensure that you use speech writing techniques for persuasive communication that address specific issues and concerns experienced by the audience.

Navigating Ethical Considerations in Political Speechwriting

Honesty is a fundamental pillar of trust and accountability in a democratic society, so when politicians are truthful in their political campaign messaging, they build integrity and foster the public's faith in their leadership. Citizens can make informed decisions when a politician uses truthful political campaign messaging. Therefore, make sure to always practice ethical speech writing.

Ethical speech writing also means avoiding divisive rhetoric because it often deepens existing divisions, polarizes communities, and makes finding common ground on important issues more difficult. Divisive rhetoric hinders constructive dialogue between political opponents. Using speech writing techniques that are inclusive, respectful, and constructive fosters unity, promotes understanding and achieves positive outcomes, which is essential for driving audience engagement in your political campaign messaging.

Leveraging Technology for Speechwriting

Many speech writing resources can help you. Let these speechwriting resources serve as a guide, but do not rely totally on speech writing resources, or you will block out the candidate's personality. Among the most effective speech writing tips is to let speechwriting tools enhance the speech writing process by using them to improve speech writing techniques. Among these speech writing tools, speech writing software is a vital resource that plays a pivotal role in organizing thoughts, structuring arguments, and drafting coherent content while creating political discourse and crafting political messages. Utilizing these effective speech writing tips gives you access to templates, outlines, and organization features that help transform ideas into well-structured political discourses. Even if you usually shy away from technology, try speech writing software.

An easy place to start is Good Party’s AI Campaign Manager , which can help candidates draft launch speeches with ease, saving time and energy. 

Additionally, another favorite among effective speech writing tips is to use research databases. These are invaluable tools for the speech writing process as they allow you to access vast amounts of information, including historical data, statistics, and policy details. Therefore, they are an invaluable speech writing resource, enabling speechwriters to conduct thorough research, fact-check statements, and bolster arguments with credible sources.

Furthermore, grammar and style-checking software is another indispensable software component critical to the speech writing process. This speech writing resource helps to refine language and ensure that the political rhetoric is clear, is grammatically correct, and resonates with the intended audience. These tools help avoid common language pitfalls and enhance the overall quality of the writing.

Another effective speech writing tip is to incorporate digital elements into political discourse, as using them engages a more diverse audience. Integrating visuals, such as infographics and charts, can make complex data more accessible by providing a visual context that aids comprehension. These graphic elements enhance understanding, make the speech more memorable, and help to ensure that crucial candidate messaging resonates with broader demographics.

Speech writing and public relations are intrinsically linked, playing a pivotal role in shaping the perception of individuals. Effective speechmaking in public relations allows for the dissemination of critical messages to target audiences. Through speechwriting and public relations strategies, public figures can build and maintain trust, manage their reputation and foster meaningful connections with voters, underscoring the indispensable synergy between speech writing and public relations in elections.

The Role of Speechwriters in Political Campaigns

Speechwriters often collaborate closely with candidates to help them build political communication skills. These political communication skills include articulating their vision, values and policy positions. Ethical speech writing requires you to lay aside your ideas and write from the candidate's point of view. This effective speech writing tip often begins with in-depth interviews to understand the candidate's personality, goals and key messages. Speechwriters then craft political rhetoric aligning with the candidate's voice and resonating with their intended audience. Regular communication and feedback loops are vital for crafting political messages, allowing for revisions and fine-tuning political communication skills to ensure that inspirational speeches are authentic and compelling. The partnership between speechwriters and candidates when crafting political messages is a dynamic process that must convey the candidate's vision effectively and connect with voters.

However, not all candidates need to hire speechwriters. With Good Party’s AI Campaign Manager , candidates can generate drafts of political speeches, completely for free. Our tools are especially helpful for crafting launch speeches, which candidates can give at campaign launch events and to kick off their campaigns.

Inspirational speeches, meticulously tailored to resonate with diverse audiences and delivered with authenticity, possess the potential to inspire, inform and mobilize voters, encapsulating a candidate's vision and values. Often, the words spoken reverberate in the electorate's hearts and minds. Tailoring speeches in this way gives them the power to shape the outcome of campaigns and the nation's course. Political rhetoric bridges the divide between candidates and voters, uniting diverse communities under a shared vision. Overall, remember that the qualities of a great speech rely on elements of style, elements of substance, and elements of impact.

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

112 Persuasive Speech Topics That Are Actually Engaging

What’s covered:, how to pick an awesome persuasive speech topic, 112 engaging persuasive speech topics, tips for preparing your persuasive speech.

Writing a stellar persuasive speech requires a carefully crafted argument that will resonate with your audience to sway them to your side. This feat can be challenging to accomplish, but an engaging, thought-provoking speech topic is an excellent place to start.

When it comes time to select a topic for your persuasive speech, you may feel overwhelmed by all the options to choose from—or your brain may be drawing a completely blank slate. If you’re having trouble thinking of the perfect topic, don’t worry. We’re here to help!

In this post, we’re sharing how to choose the perfect persuasive speech topic and tips to prepare for your speech. Plus, you’ll find 112 persuasive speech topics that you can take directly from us or use as creative inspiration for your own ideas!

Choose Something You’re Passionate About

It’s much easier to write, research, and deliver a speech about a cause you care about. Even if it’s challenging to find a topic that completely sparks your interest, try to choose a topic that aligns with your passions.

However, keep in mind that not everyone has the same interests as you. Try to choose a general topic to grab the attention of the majority of your audience, but one that’s specific enough to keep them engaged.

For example, suppose you’re giving a persuasive speech about book censorship. In that case, it’s probably too niche to talk about why “To Kill a Mockingbird” shouldn’t be censored (even if it’s your favorite book), and it’s too broad to talk about media censorship in general.

Steer Clear of Cliches

Have you already heard a persuasive speech topic presented dozens of times? If so, it’s probably not an excellent choice for your speech—even if it’s an issue you’re incredibly passionate about.

Although polarizing topics like abortion and climate control are important to discuss, they aren’t great persuasive speech topics. Most people have already formed an opinion on these topics, which will either cause them to tune out or have a negative impression of your speech.

Instead, choose topics that are fresh, unique, and new. If your audience has never heard your idea presented before, they will be more open to your argument and engaged in your speech.

Have a Clear Side of Opposition

For a persuasive speech to be engaging, there must be a clear side of opposition. To help determine the arguability of your topic, ask yourself: “If I presented my viewpoint on this topic to a group of peers, would someone disagree with me?” If the answer is yes, then you’ve chosen a great topic!

Now that we’ve laid the groundwork for what it takes to choose a great persuasive speech topic, here are over one hundred options for you to choose from.

• Should high school athletes get tested for steroids?
• Should schools be required to have physical education courses?
• Should sports grades in school depend on things like athletic ability?
• What sport should be added to or removed from the Olympics?
• Should college athletes be able to make money off of their merchandise?
• Should sports teams be able to recruit young athletes without a college degree?
• Should we consider video gamers as professional athletes?
• Is cheerleading considered a sport?
• Should parents allow their kids to play contact sports?
• Should professional female athletes be paid the same as professional male athletes?
• Should college be free at the undergraduate level?
• Is the traditional college experience obsolete?
• Should you choose a major based on your interests or your potential salary?
• Should high school students have to meet a required number of service hours before graduating?
• Should teachers earn more or less based on how their students perform on standardized tests?
• Are private high schools more effective than public high schools?
• Should there be a minimum number of attendance days required to graduate?
• Are GPAs harmful or helpful?
• Should schools be required to teach about standardized testing?
• Should Greek Life be banned in the United States?
• Should schools offer science classes explicitly about mental health?
• Should students be able to bring their cell phones to school?
• Should all public restrooms be all-gender?
• Should undocumented immigrants have the same employment and education opportunities as citizens?
• Should everyone be paid a living wage regardless of their employment status?
• Should supremacist groups be able to hold public events?
• Should guns be allowed in public places?
• Should the national drinking age be lowered?
• Should prisoners be allowed to vote?
• Should the government raise or lower the retirement age?
• Should the government be able to control the population?
• Is the death penalty ethical?

Environment

• Should stores charge customers for plastic bags?
• Should breeding animals (dogs, cats, etc.) be illegal?
• Is it okay to have exotic animals as pets?
• Should people be fined for not recycling?
• Should compost bins become mandatory for restaurants?
• Should electric vehicles have their own transportation infrastructure?
• Would heavier fining policies reduce corporations’ emissions?
• Should hunting be encouraged or illegal?
• Should reusable diapers replace disposable diapers?

Science & Technology

• Is paper media more reliable than digital news sources?
• Should automated/self-driving cars be legalized?
• Should schools be required to provide laptops to all students?
• Should software companies be able to have pre-downloaded programs and applications on devices?
• Should drones be allowed in military warfare?
• Should scientists invest more or less money into cancer research?
• Should cloning be illegal?
• Should societies colonize other planets?
• Should there be legal oversight over the development of technology?

Social Media

• Should there be an age limit on social media?
• Should cyberbullying have the same repercussions as in-person bullying?
• Are online relationships as valuable as in-person relationships?
• Does “cancel culture” have a positive or negative impact on societies?
• Are social media platforms reliable information or news sources?
• Should social media be censored?
• Does social media create an unrealistic standard of beauty?
• Is regular social media usage damaging to real-life interactions?
• Is social media distorting democracy?
• How many branches of government should there be?
• Who is the best/worst president of all time?
• How long should judges serve in the U.S. Supreme Court?
• Should a more significant portion of the U.S. budget be contributed towards education?
• Should the government invest in rapid transcontinental transportation infrastructure?
• Should airport screening be more or less stringent?
• Should the electoral college be dismantled?
• Should the U.S. have open borders?
• Should the government spend more or less money on space exploration?
• Should students sing Christmas carols, say the pledge of allegiance, or perform other tangentially religious activities?
• Should nuns and priests become genderless roles?
• Should schools and other public buildings have prayer rooms?
• Should animal sacrifice be legal if it occurs in a religious context?
• Should countries be allowed to impose a national religion on their citizens?
• Should the church be separated from the state?
• Does freedom of religion positively or negatively affect societies?

Parenting & Family

• Is it better to have children at a younger or older age?
• Is it better for children to go to daycare or stay home with their parents?
• Does birth order affect personality?
• Should parents or the school system teach their kids about sex?
• Are family traditions important?
• Should parents smoke or drink around young children?
• Should “spanking” children be illegal?
• Should parents use swear words in front of their children?
• Should parents allow their children to play violent video games?

Entertainment

• Should all actors be paid the same regardless of gender or ethnicity?
• Should all award shows be based on popular vote?
• Who should be responsible for paying taxes on prize money, the game show staff or the contestants?
• Should movies and television shows have ethnicity and gender quotas?
• Should newspapers and magazines move to a completely online format?
• Should streaming services like Netflix and Hulu be free for students?
• Is the movie rating system still effective?
• Should celebrities have more privacy rights?

Arts & Humanities

• Are libraries becoming obsolete?
• Should all schools have mandatory art or music courses in their curriculum?
• Should offensive language be censored from classic literary works?
• Is it ethical for museums to keep indigenous artifacts?
• Should digital designs be considered an art form? 
• Should abstract art be considered an art form?
• Is music therapy effective?
• Should tattoos be regarded as “professional dress” for work?
• Should schools place greater emphasis on the arts programs?
• Should euthanasia be allowed in hospitals and other clinical settings?
• Should the government support and implement universal healthcare?
• Would obesity rates lower if the government intervened to make healthy foods more affordable?
• Should teenagers be given access to birth control pills without parental consent?
• Should food allergies be considered a disease?
• Should health insurance cover homeopathic medicine?
• Is using painkillers healthy?
• Should genetically modified foods be banned?
• Should there be a tax on unhealthy foods?
• Should tobacco products be banned from the country?
• Should the birth control pill be free for everyone?

If you need more help brainstorming topics, especially those that are personalized to your interests, you can  use CollegeVine’s free AI tutor, Ivy . Ivy can help you come up with original persuasive speech ideas, and she can also help with the rest of your homework, from math to languages.

Do Your Research

A great persuasive speech is supported with plenty of well-researched facts and evidence. So before you begin the writing process, research both sides of the topic you’re presenting in-depth to gain a well-rounded perspective of the topic.

Understand Your Audience

It’s critical to understand your audience to deliver a great persuasive speech. After all, you are trying to convince them that your viewpoint is correct. Before writing your speech, consider the facts and information that your audience may already know, and think about the beliefs and concerns they may have about your topic. Then, address these concerns in your speech, and be mindful to include fresh, new information.

Have Someone Read Your Speech

Once you have finished writing your speech, have someone read it to check for areas of strength and improvement. You can use CollegeVine’s free essay review tool to get feedback on your speech from a peer!

Practice Makes Perfect

After completing your final draft, the key to success is to practice. Present your speech out loud in front of a mirror, your family, friends, and basically, anyone who will listen. Not only will the feedback of others help you to make your speech better, but you’ll become more confident in your presentation skills and may even be able to commit your speech to memory.

Hopefully, these ideas have inspired you to write a powerful, unique persuasive speech. With the perfect topic, plenty of practice, and a boost of self-confidence, we know you’ll impress your audience with a remarkable speech!

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

• Subscribe Now

FULL SPEECH: Pacquiao’s last pitch in General Santos City

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

GENERAL SANTOS CITY, Philippines – PROMDI standard-bearer Manny Pacquiao makes his last pitch to voters in his home city General Santos on Saturday, May 7.

Pacquiao urged voters to choose him as their president on May 9, as he pushed for his anti-corruption platform that seeks to uplift the lives of poor Filipinos.

The boxing champion-turned-politician reminisced on his rags-to-riches life story, saying that his presidency would be for the poor, and by the poor.  – Rappler.com 

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}, 2022 ph elections - multimedia, over 5m posts downed for violating violence, incitement rules during ph elections – meta.

HIGHLIGHTS: Rappler+ briefing on the social media landscape in the 2022 Philippine elections

FULL VIDEO: Rappler+ Briefing on how elections played out on social media

Newsbreak Chats: Was there cheating in the 2022 Philippine elections?

WATCH: President-elect Marcos, VP-elect Duterte proclaimed

2022 PH Elections - News

Sc affirms dismissal of disqualification case vs senator raffy tulfo.

WATCH: Island-hopping in Sulat, Eastern Samar

Elderly peasant leader arrested in Bohol; family, union groups cry foul

Legazpi Mayor Rosal’s disqualification becomes final after unanswered SC plea

Supporters of Rosal couple protest in front of Legazpi City hall

2022 Philippine Elections

Comelec again disqualifies cagayan’s mamba from 2022 gubernatorial election.

James Jimenez’s presence in Comelec event wakes up ghost of debate fiasco probe

Rappler Talk: Was it justice for Jemboy Baltazar’s parents?

[New School] Tama na kayo

[Only IN Hollywood] After a thousand cuts, and so it begins for Ramona Diaz and Maria Ressa

General Santos City

Eid’l fitr marks period of generosity, charity.

Heat-induced ailments affect thousands of General Santos students

GenSan’s Kalilangan festival: A vibrant tapestry of history, culture, and heritage

General Santos animal welfare group harnesses social media for support

GenSan creates Task Force to push info about El Niño threats, what to do

Manny Pacquiao

Pacquiao, sulaiman honor filipino champs, eye ph-mexico tiff.

Pacquiao too old for Paris Games, says Olympic body 

Marcos appoints Ralph Recto as new finance chief | The wRap

Dwight Howard challenges Manny Pacquiao to 3-point contest in meeting

Manny Pacquiao announces exhibition boxing match with rival Floyd Mayweather

Soccsksargen

Sultan kudarat governor suspends town mayor for more than a year.

Dry spell losses exceed P300 million in Cotabato province

BARMM eyes new province for eight newly created towns

Mindanao’s Tagakaulo people struggle to preserve way of life

DENR files criminal case vs vlogger, companion for ‘maltreatment’ of tarsiers

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

• Asia Pacific
• Middle East
• United Kingdom
• United States
• The Great Reboot
• Reuters Next
• Aerospace & Defense
• Autos & Transportation
• Environment
• Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals
• Media & Telecom
• Retail & Consumer
• Sustainable Business
• Future of Health
• Future of Money
• Reuters Impact
• Legal Industry
• Transactional
• Asian Markets
• Carbon Markets
• Commodities
• Emerging Markets
• European Markets
• Global Market Data
• Rates & Bonds
• U.S. Markets
• Macro Matters
• Reuters Momentum
• Motor Sports
• Oddly Enough

Donald Trump’s rally speech in Wisconsin examined

By CHRISTINA ANAGNOSTOPOULOS , SOFIA PAREDES and SEANA DAVIS

Filed April 20, 2024, 10 a.m. GMT

Reuters examined 11 statements made by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at his rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on April 2. While Reuters monitored the 58-minute speech in its entirety, the news agency did not examine opinions, rhetorical or direct questions, anonymous sourcing and information that could not be independently verified.

The statements are listed in chronological order with the timestamps in Central Daylight Time (CDT).

CLAIM  17:09 CDT

Trump says he won Wisconsin by “a lot,” referring to the 2020 presidential election

WHAT WE KNOW

This is false. Joe Biden won the state of Wisconsin in the 2020 presidential election with 49.4% of the vote over Trump’s 48.8%.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to take up a case by Trump challenging the election results.

CLAIM  17:11 CDT

Trump says Biden declared Easter Sunday to be Transgender Visibility Day

This is misleading. Biden made public remarks about Transgender Day of Visibility, but he did not say Easter Sunday would become Trans Visibility Day.

Transgender Day of Visibility has been celebrated on March 31 for 14 years, according to the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD . It happened to be the same day as Easter Sunday in 2024. Read more.

CLAIM  17:12 CDT

While talking about crime during the Biden administration, Trump says crime in Venezuela is down by 67%

The source of the 67% figure is unclear. A Trump spokesperson did not respond to a Reuters request for the data supporting the figure.

According to the Venezuelan Violence Observatory , a Caracas-based research organization, violent deaths declined 25% last year from 2022.

CLAIM  17:18 CDT (again at 17:37-17:39 and 17:45 CDT)

Trump repeats his false claim that the 2020 election was stolen or illegitimate

This is false. State governments, courts and members of Trump’s administration have repeatedly rejected the former president’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen .

Federal and state judges have dismissed more than 50 lawsuits alleging election fraud or other irregularities related to the 2020 presidential election brought by Trump or his allies. Read more .

CLAIM  17:19 CDT

Trump quotes Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban as saying, “The only way you’re going to clean up this world is if Trump becomes president again”

This is in line with past statements Hungary’s nationalist prime minister has made about Trump. Orban said in a meeting with the former president in Florida last month that only Trump could bring peace to Ukraine’s conflict with Russia.

“We need leaders in the world who are respected and can bring peace. He is one of them! Come back and bring us peace, Mr. President!,” Orban said in a post on X after that meeting.

CLAIM  17:26 CDT

Trump says he built 571 miles of border wall. He did not specify which land border but since 2016 he has campaigned for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

This is not accurate. The Trump administration completed around 458 miles of barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to January 2021 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.

The majority were barriers that were built during previous administrations and replaced during Trump’s tenure. In areas where no structures existed prior to Trump taking office in January 2017, his administration constructed a total of 52 miles of primary wall.

A January 2021 CBP report obtained by Factcheck.org shows 33 miles of new secondary wall were built during Trump’s tenure.

CLAIM  17:27 CDT

Trump says illegal immigration into the U.S. fell to its lowest point “in history” during his presidency

This is mostly true, based on available government data.

During Trump’s administration, the number of apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol at the southwest border (an indicator of attempts of illegal border crossings) for a single month fell to their lowest point on record in April 2017, according to monthly CBP data that goes back to fiscal year 2000 .

CBP has yearly data for nationwide apprehensions by all land, air and sea routes since fiscal year 1925.

Going by these figures, Trump’s aren’t the lowest on record but they are the lowest in over four decades. In fiscal year 1971, during Richard Nixon’s administration, total apprehensions dipped to 302,517, which is below Trump’s lowest tally of 310,531 in fiscal year 2017.

CLAIM  17:30 CDT

Trump says wages rose during his presidency without any inflation

Nationwide wages rose 3.1% during Trump’s presidency, based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index inflation-adjusted constant dollar estimates.

Inflation was not at zero, but it was lower than during the Biden administration.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the Trump administration varied from a high of 2.9% in July 2018 to a low of 0.2% in May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic’s first wave.

It is true that inflation significantly increased during Biden’s tenure; it stood at 1.4% when he took office and rose to 9% in June 2022, following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.

Inflation rates have remained below 3.6% since October 2023.

CLAIM  17:34 CDT

The U.S. has more oil and gas than any country in the world

Venezuela has the largest proven crude oil reserves as of 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) while Russia has the largest natural gas reserves, per the International Energy Agency.

As for recoverable oil resources, the expected amounts in existing fields, Saudi Arabia leads the way followed by the U.S. and Russia, according to a 2023 report by oil analysts Rystad Energy.

In terms of production, the U.S. became the world’s largest crude oil producer in 2018 during Trump’s presidency and has remained the top producer since.

The U.S. is also the top producer of natural gas. Since 2017, U.S. natural gas exports have exceeded imports. The latest rankings available (2022) from the EIA show the U.S. produces more energy from petroleum and other liquids than any other country.

The U.S. oil and gas industry has also boomed under Biden’s presidency by almost all metrics, even if he has pushed to transition the economy toward a greener future, hitting record levels of crude oil production in 2023. Read more.

CLAIM  17:36-17:37 CDT

Talking about immigration, Trump says that under the Biden administration, the U.S. has taken in “at least 15 million people”

It’s not clear what Trump meant by the U.S. having “taken in” 15 million people. While it is true that the number of encounters reported by the CBP at the U.S.-Mexico border reached record levels during the Biden administration, it isn’t 15 million.

CBP data compiled between January 2021 and February 2024 show 7,522,711 encounters at the southwest land border.

In terms of nationwide encounters , CBP registered 9,139,037 encounters between January 2021 and February 2024.

Encounter figures include data for Title 8 apprehensions and inadmissibles . This policy grants some migrants the chance to seek asylum in the U.S. or be processed for deportation.

Between March 2020 and May 2023, encounters also included expulsions under the now-expired Title 42 , a COVID-era restriction that allowed border agents to quickly expel migrants without allowing them to seek asylum.

CLAIM  17:50-17:51 CDT

Trump says he was the first president in decades who started no new wars

Defining wars can be difficult. If we consider the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq War, Trump joins former presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower in not having officially brought the U.S. into a new war since 1945.

Trump’s tenure, however, did involve military hostilities overseas and the threat of new ones. The Pentagon said Trump ordered a 2020 drone strike in Iraq that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani , triggering Iranian retaliation that threatened to spiral into open conflict, but did not.

The United States in 2017 launched a missile attack on a Syrian army airbase, marking an escalation of the U.S. military’s role in Syria.

Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea in 2017 but eventually de-escalated tension with Pyongyang.

A Trump spokesperson did not respond to several requests for comment about the statements examined.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work.

By Christina Anagnostopoulos, Sofia Paredes and Seana Davis

Photo editing: Corinne Perkins

Art direction: John Emerson

Edited by Stephanie Burnett, Suzanne Goldenberg and Christine Soares

• Follow Reuters Investigates

Other Reuters investigations

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

News organizations urge Biden and Trump to commit to presidential debates during the 2024 campaign

FILE - Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden, right, answers a question as President Donald Trump listens during the second and final presidential debate Oct. 22, 2020, in Nashville, Tenn. Twelve news organizations issued a joint statement calling on the presumptive presidential nominees President Biden and former President Trump to agree to debates during the 2024 campaign. ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, PBS, NBC, NPR and The Associated Press all signed on to the letter. (AP Photo/Morry Gash, Pool, File)

This combination of photos show President Donald Trump, left, and former Vice President Joe Biden during the first presidential debate on Sept. 29, 2020, in Cleveland, Ohio. Twelve news organizations issued a joint statement calling on the presumptive presidential nominees President Biden and former President Trump to agree to debates during the 2024 campaign. ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, PBS, NBC, NPR and The Associated Press all signed on to the letter. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

• Copy Link copied

NEW YORK (AP) — Twelve news organizations on Sunday urged presumptive presidential nominees Joe Biden and Donald Trump to agree to debates , saying they were a “rich tradition” that have been part of every general election campaign since 1976.

While Trump, who did not participate in debates for the Republican nomination, has indicated a willingness to take on his 2020 rival, the Democratic president has not committed to debating him again.

Although invitations have not been formally issued, the news organizations said it was not too early for each campaign to say publicly that it will participate in the three presidential and one vice presidential forums set by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

“If there is one thing Americans can agree on during this polarized time, it is that the stakes of this election are exceptionally high,” the organizations said in a joint statement. “Amidst that backdrop, there is simply no substitute for the candidates debating with each other, and before the American people, their visions for the future of our nation.”

ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, PBS, NBC, NPR and The Associated Press all signed on to the letter.

Biden and Trump debated twice in 2020. A third debate was canceled after Trump, then president, tested positive for COVID-19 and would not debate remotely.

Asked on March 8 whether he would commit to a debate with Trump, Biden said, “it depends on his behavior.” The president was visibly miffed by his opponent in the freewheeling first 2020 debate, at one point saying, “will you shut up?”

Trump campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita said in a letter this past week that “we have already indicated President Trump is willing to debate anytime, any place and anywhere — and the time to start these debates is now.”

They cited the seven 1858 Illinois Senate debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, saying “certainly today’s America deserves as much.”

The Republican National Committee voted in 2022 to no longer participate in forums sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Trump campaign has not indicated it would adhere to that, but did have some conditions. The campaign managers said the commission selected a “demonstrably anti-Trump moderator” in then-Fox News host Chris Wallace in 2020 and wants assurances the commission debates are fair and impartial.

The Trump campaign also wants the timetable moved up, saying that many Americans will have already voted by Sept. 16, Oct. 1 and Oct. 9, the dates of the three debates set by the commission .

The Biden campaign declined comment on the news organizations’ letter, pointing to the president’s earlier statement. There was no immediate response from the Trump campaign.

But on Saturday, Trump held a rally in northeast Pennsylvania with two lecterns set up on the stage: one for him to give a speech, the other to symbolize what he said was Biden’s refusal to debate him. The second lectern had a placard that read, “Anytime. Anywhere. Anyplace.”

Midway through his campaign speech, Trump turned to his right and pointed to the second lectern.

“We have a little, look at this, it’s for him,” he said. “See the podium? I’m calling on Crooked Joe Biden to debate anytime, anywhere, any place. Right there. And we have to debate because our country is going in the wrong direction so badly and while it’s a little bit typically early we have to debate. We have to explain to the American people what the hell is going on,” Trump said.

C-SPAN, NewsNation and Univision also joined the letter calling for debates. Only one newspaper, USA Today, added its voice. The Washington Post declined a request to join.

Certainly the broadcasters could use the juice that debates may bring. Television news ratings are down significantly compared with the 2020 campaign, although there are other factors involved, such as cord-cutting and the pandemic, that increased interest in news four years ago.

There were no Democratic debates this presidential cycle, and Trump’s refusal to participate in the GOP forums depressed interest in them.

Associated Press writer Josh Boak in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania, contributed to this report.