How might Donald Trump do a Kamala Harris speech?

I’m kinda obsessed with how people speak and what they say. So, while I have no dog in the fight in the US Presidential Election, I am fascinated by the communication styles.

Yesterday I saw a 2 min clip of Kamala Harris doing a speech on a panel. And I thought:

I wonder how Donald Trump might say something similar? What would he say, and how would he say it?

So — for a laugh — I spent my evening doing this:

1. I used Otter AI to transcribe the 2 minutes of Kamala’s monologue.
2. I went off on a tangent using Claude AI to analyze it (more on that below).
3. One of the findings of ClaudeAI was that the opposite of Kamala’s speaking style and substance was a guy called Donald Trump (and Reagan, and Bush).
4. So I asked ClaudeAI to re-write the Kamala transcript into a Donald format (see below).
5. Then, I asked Fineshare text-to-voice AI to read the fake Donald transcript in his voice.
6. Lastly, I turned it into a slide deck and made a video of it.

I’m going to just begin with the end, and share with you the complete movie (7+ mins) that I made. It’s all in this move, and then I’ll break it down below. Enjoy!

• LinkedIn
• X
• Facebook
• YouTube
• Mail

Youtube

Slides

Analysis of Kamala’s speaking style and substance with ClaudeAI

Let’s start with the raw transcript of Kamala’s 2-min monologue:

Keywords: democracy strength, fight for democracy, American spirit, community building, coalitions, power to decide, overwhelming nature, joyful process, fragile democracy, rise to moment, baton passed, love for country, stand together, freedom protection, rights protection

Wordcount: 307

Let me, if I can, just speak to the what people are feeling. We cannot despair. We cannot despair. 

You know, the nature of a democracy is such that I think there's a duality. 

On the one hand, there's an incredible strength when our democracy is intact, an incredible strength in what it does to protect the freedoms and rights of its people. 

Oh, there's great strength in that, and it is very fragile. It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it. 

And so that's the moment we're in. And I say, do not despair, because in a democracy, as long as we can keep it in our democracy, the people, every individual, has the power to make a decision about what this will be, and that's and so let's not feel powerless. 

Let's not let the some and I get it, overwhelming nature of this all make us feel powerless, because then we have been defeated. 

And that's not our character as the American people. 

We are not one to be defeated. We rise to a moment and we stand on broad shoulders of people who have fought this fight before for our country, and in many ways, let us look at the challenge then that we are being presented and not be overwhelmed by it. 

The baton is now in our hands to fight for, not against, but for this country we love. That's what we have the power to do. 

So let's own that, dare I say, be joyful in what we will do in the process of owning that which is knowing that we can and will build community and coalitions and remind people that we're all in this together. 

Let's not let the overwhelming nature of this strip us of our strength. That's how I feel about this.

Style Analysis

1. The speech employs a conversational, intimate tone while maintaining gravitas. The phrases “Let me, if I can” and “You know” create immediate connection with the audience.
2. There’s heavy use of repetition (“We cannot despair”) for emphasis – a classic rhetorical device.
3. The speaker uses a “call and response” structure, raising concerns and immediately addressing them.
4. The language is accessible yet inspiring, mixing colloquial phrases with elevated concepts.

Content/Substance

1. This is clearly a crisis or challenging moment speech, focused on democracy and civic duty
2. The central theme is empowerment in the face of despair
3. Key message points:
   • Democracy is both strong and fragile
   • Individual agency matters
   • Historical continuity (“broad shoulders of people”)
   • Community and coalition building
   • Action over despair

Speaker Profile

This speech bears hallmarks of a high-level political figure or civic leader, likely someone in an executive or leadership position. The style and substance suggest someone who:

• Has significant public authority
• Feels responsible for maintaining public morale
• Has experience in coalition building
• Understands democratic institutions deeply

Target Audience

This speech appears aimed at:

• Democratic activists or supporters
• Concerned citizens during a political crisis
• People who feel overwhelmed by political events
• Educated, civically engaged individuals

Techniques

The speech demonstrates several expert techniques:

1. Emotional Scaffolding: Acknowledges fears before building to hope
2. Dual Messaging: Balances sobering reality with optimistic possibility
3. Personal Investment: Uses “we” throughout to create collective identity
4. Momentum Building: Starts with acknowledgment of despair and builds to a call for joyful action

Key Strengths

• Strong emotional resonance
• Clear thematic progression
• Effective use of parallel structure
• Powerful closing that transforms concern into action

For context, this type of speech is reminiscent of crisis communication during pivotal democratic moments. The structure and tone suggest it’s likely delivered in a more intimate setting rather than a large rally – perhaps a town hall, community meeting, or direct-to-camera address.

What would you say if someone in the audience, a lay person, said they thought it was “ambiguous and a lot of waffle”?

Is it waffle?

As a public speaking expert, I understand that reaction completely and it’s a valuable critique to address. Let me break down why someone might feel that way and what’s actually happening in the speech:

You’re right in detecting a certain “waffle” quality – this speech purposely avoids concrete specifics, which can feel frustrating. Let me explain why:

1. Strategic Ambiguity

• The speaker is likely dealing with a sensitive political situation where being too specific could be divisive or problematic
• The vagueness allows different audience members to apply the message to their own concerns
• However, for listeners wanting clear, actionable points, this can feel unsatisfying

2. The “Emotional Over Practical” Approach

The speech prioritizes emotional resonance over concrete action steps. Compare:

• What it doesn’t do: “Here’s our 5-point plan…”
• What it does do: “We cannot despair… we rise to a moment…”

3. The Circular Nature

Yes, there is repetition and circling back to ideas, which can feel like “waffle.” But this is actually a deliberate technique used when:

• Speaking to complex emotions
• Trying to shift mindsets
• Building collective resolve

Think of it like a coach’s locker room speech – it’s not about giving detailed play instructions, it’s about getting people mentally prepared and emotionally aligned.

4. What Makes It Feel Like “Waffle”?

• Lack of specific examples
• Repeated phrases and ideas
• Abstract concepts (“democracy,” “strength,” “power”)
• Limited concrete action items

5. What’s Actually Happening

This is a specific type of speech called a “unity” or “rallying” speech. Its purpose isn’t to outline policy or strategy, but to:

• Acknowledge collective anxiety
• Build psychological resilience
• Create shared purpose
• Transform fear into determination

So while the critique of “ambiguous and waffle” is understandable, it’s like criticizing a poem for not being a instruction manual – it’s designed for a different purpose.

The real question might be: Was this the right type of speech for this moment? Perhaps the audience needed more concrete direction rather than emotional reinforcement. That’s a valid discussion to have about whether the speaker read their audience’s needs correctly.

If these speech patterns reflect the speaker’s approach, would this person be good at dealing with tough decisions and tough people who don’t respond to emotional speeches?

Does this speech from someone who can deal with tough decisions and people who don’t respond to emotional speeches?

This is an excellent and challenging question that gets to the heart of leadership effectiveness beyond rhetoric. Let me analyze this from multiple angles:

Potential Concerns

The highly empathetic, emotionally-aware style might suggest:

• Possible reluctance to make unpopular decisions
• Preference for consensus over confrontation
• Tendency to process and discuss rather than decide and act
• Could be seen as “soft” by adversaries

Historical Context

Shows many highly effective tough negotiators use similar speaking styles:

• They maintain public empathy while being razor-sharp in private
• The emotional intelligence displayed often indicates skilled reading of others’ motivations
• Understanding feelings doesn’t mean being controlled by them

Strong Leadership Markers

• Clear binary on democracy: “fight for, not against”
• Doesn’t shy from conflict: “The baton is now in our hands”
• Acknowledges harsh realities while maintaining resolve
• Shows strategic thinking in building coalitions

Historical Examples

• Margaret Thatcher was known for emotional intelligence in public speaking while being an incredibly tough negotiator
• Jacinda Ardern combined empathetic communication with firm crisis management
• Angela Merkel’s consensus-building public style coexisted with tough behind-scenes negotiating

Key Insight

The ability to give emotionally intelligent speeches often correlates with:

• Sophisticated understanding of human motivation
• Skill at managing multiple stakeholders
• Strategic patience in achieving goals
• Ability to build lasting coalitions

The Real Test

The speaker’s effectiveness would depend on:

1. Whether the emotional intelligence shown is:

• A tool in their toolkit (effective)
• Their only approach (limiting)

2. Their ability to:

• Switch communication styles for different audiences
• Back words with actions
• Make unpopular decisions when necessary
• Stand firm under pressure

Bottom Line

From what we see in this speech, I’d argue the speaker shows sophisticated emotional intelligence and strategic thinking – both valuable in tough negotiations. The key question isn’t whether they can give an emotional speech, but whether they can deploy different approaches for different situations.

The speech suggests someone who understands human motivation and group dynamics – often an advantage in tough situations, not a weakness.

What’s your view on whether emotional intelligence helps or hinders in tough negotiations?

Don’t you think that this emotional language and lack of action detail hides a lack of competency and no grasp of detail?

Legitimate Red Flags in the Speech

This is a sharp and important challenge. Let me analyze it without bias:

1. No Specific Actions

• Not a single concrete step or policy mentioned
• No evidence of detailed planning
• No demonstration of technical knowledge
• Could indeed be hiding incompetence behind flowery language

2. Reliance on Emotional Appeals

• Heavy use of feel-good platitudes (“we rise to a moment”)
• Abstract concepts rather than tangible solutions
• Could be using emotional manipulation to mask lack of substance

3. Circular Arguments

• Repeats similar ideas without progression
• Could indicate shallow understanding of issues
• Might be buying time or deflecting

Context Matters

1. Speech Purpose

• If this is one speech in a series, maybe others cover details
• If it’s a crisis moment, emotional stabilization might be the priority
• If it’s to a broad audience, details might be inappropriate

2. Political Reality

• Detailed plans can become hostage to opposition
• Vagueness can be strategic rather than ignorant
• Some audiences tune out with too much detail

Analytical Test

We could assess competency by asking:

1. Does the speaker display these patterns:

• In all speeches? (concerning)
• In specific contexts? (potentially strategic)

2. Do they demonstrate detail mastery in:

• Private meetings?
• Policy documents?
• Implementation phases?

Historical Perspective

Many leaders who were detail-oriented and highly competent still gave emotional speeches:

• Churchill (military strategist, emotional wartime speeches)
• FDR (economic expert, fireside chats were emotional)

Bottom Line

Your skepticism is well-founded. This speech alone doesn’t prove competency. But it also doesn’t prove incompetency. We’d need to see:

• Their track record
• Their detail command in other settings
• Their ability to execute

The real test isn’t what they say, but what they do. Do you have examples of their actual performance beyond speeches?

Would it be reasonable for someone in the audience to feel they were being emotionally manipulated but this kind of speech?

Yes, absolutely – this is a very legitimate reaction. Let me break this down from a public speaking analysis perspective:

Signs of Potential Emotional Manipulation

The Emotional Pressure Points

• “We cannot despair” (repeated) – implies you’re failing if you feel despair
• “That’s not our character as the American people” – shame/guilt if you don’t feel strong
• “Let’s not feel powerless” – suggesting your natural feelings are wrong
• “Be joyful” – almost commanding an emotional state

The Rhetorical Techniques

• Uses “we” to force inclusion
• Creates false choices (either you’re fighting or you’re “defeated”)
• Employs peer pressure (“that’s not our character”)
• Suggests moral obligation (“The baton is now in our hands”)

The Absence of Choice

• Doesn’t acknowledge that people might legitimately disagree
• Presents only one acceptable emotional response
• Makes assumptions about shared values and goals

Why Someone Might Feel Manipulated

It’s a one-way emotional conversation

• Speaker defines what we should feel
• No space for different reactions
• No acknowledgment of valid opposing views

Emotional Burden-Shifting

• Places responsibility for democracy on individuals
• Could feel guilt-inducing during genuine hardship
• Makes personal feelings a matter of civic duty

False Intimacy

• Assumes right to guide audience’s emotional state
• Creates artificial collective identity
• Uses personal, emotional language without real relationship

What Makes It Particularly Problematic

• Combines authority position with emotional pressure
• Lacks concrete actions while demanding emotional investment
• Uses collective identity (“American people”) to enforce conformity

A More Honest Approach?

• “These are challenging times and people have different reactions”
• “It’s natural to feel overwhelmed or discouraged”
• “While I believe in action, everyone must decide their own response”
• “Here are specific things we can do, regardless of how we feel”

The Deeper Issue

This style of emotional rhetoric in political speech can be seen as:

1. Necessary for motivation and unity OR
2. Manipulative exploitation of psychological vulnerabilities

Your reaction of feeling manipulated shows:

• Desire for more authentic, less prescriptive leadership
• Good emotional boundaries
• Healthy skepticism of authority
• Recognition of rhetorical techniques

If this was a speech from a potential president of the united states, does this type of speech match them to previous presidents? Who are they similar to?

Most Similar Presidential Styles

Barack Obama

• Strong emotional resonance
• Emphasis on collective “we”
• Similar cadence and rhythm
• Focus on hope over despair
• Heavy use of abstract concepts about democracy
• Community organizer’s approach to coalition building

Bill Clinton

• Conversational intimacy (“let me speak to…”)
• Emphasis on feelings and emotional connection
• “I feel your pain” style emotional acknowledgment
• Bridge-building rhetoric

Less Similar, But Some Elements of:

JFK

• Call to civic duty
• Democracy as both strong and fragile
• Emphasis on individual responsibility
• Though JFK was generally more direct and action-oriented

Notable Differences From

Donald Trump

• Trump’s speeches: more direct, concrete, adversarial
• Less nuanced, more binary choices
• More specific targets and promises
• More “I will” than “we must”

Ronald Reagan

• Reagan: clearer storytelling
• More specific policy points
• More direct calls to action
• Though similar optimistic tone

George W. Bush

• Bush: more straightforward messaging
• More concrete policy proposals
• Less philosophical about democracy

Key Observations

1. This speech fits the modern Democratic presidential style:

• More nuanced
• More collaborative
• More emotional processing
• Less authoritative declaration

2. It’s notably less:

• Policy specific than most presidential speeches
• Action-oriented than traditional presidential rhetoric
• Clear about opposition/challenges

3. It suggests a speaker who:

• Comes from an organizing/coalition background
• Values emotional connection over policy detail
• Sees role as emotional leader/unifier
• Might be more comfortable in persuasion than command

In terms of modern presidential communication, it fits more with the “professor/counselor” style (Obama) than the “commander/CEO” style (Trump) or the “storyteller” style (Reagan).

If Donald Trump did the same speech, how might he do it? What would he say? Can you impersonate him to make the same points, but in his style?

IMPORTANT: Donald Trump didn’t say this — it’s an AI-generated “Donaldesque” version of what Kamala Harris said, generated by ClaudeAI.

Folks, let me tell you what's really happening here, it's very serious, very serious. 

People come up to me all the time, strong people, tough people, and they're crying - literally crying - about what's happening to our beautiful country. 

But let me tell you something, we're not going to let them win. We're not! 

Look, this democracy - and nobody knows more about democracy than me, believe me - it's incredibly strong when it's working. So strong. The strongest. 

But the radical left, they're trying to destroy it. They're destroying it on purpose, folks. On purpose! And we can't let that happen. 

Some people, they see what's happening and they get scared. Don't be scared. Don't be scared because we're much stronger than them, much smarter than them. We have the best people, the strongest people. Nobody has people like we have. 

And you know what? Every single one of you - and we have millions and millions of incredible patriots - you have so much power. Tremendous power. More power than they want you to know about. 

And they hate that, they hate it so much. Look at our history - nobody, nobody has ever beaten the American people. Ever! We've got the greatest history, the most beautiful history. And now it's our turn. 

The fake news media, they don't want to talk about it, but we're going to win like nobody's ever won before. 

So here's what we're going to do - and this is so important - we're going to come together, we're going to build the biggest, most powerful movement they've ever seen. It's already happening, folks. The biggest! 

And we're going to take our country back. And you know what? We're going to have fun doing it. We're going to have so much fun. 

They're miserable - look at them, they're miserable people! But we're going to have fun, and we're going to win, win, win. You'll get tired of winning! 

So don't listen to the losers and haters who want you to feel bad. We're too strong for that, much too strong. This is our moment, our beautiful moment, and nobody - nobody - is going to take it away from us. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. God bless you, and God bless America!

Key Trump Style Elements Used

• Superlatives (“biggest,” “strongest,” “best”)
• Direct enemy identification
• Simple, repetitive language
• Personal anecdotes about “people coming up to me”
• Victory/winning emphasis
• Us vs. Them framing
• Claims of unique knowledge/capability
• Mockery of opponents
• Informal asides
• Building anticipation
• Emotional contrast (they’re miserable/we’re having fun)
• Direct audience engagement
• Short, punchy sentences
• Branding opposition (“radical left,” “fake news”)
• Religious/patriotic closing

Donald Trump keywords

“Folks” Intensifiers: “Very/So/Most”, “very serious”, “so important”, “most powerful”, “Beautiful”, “beautiful country”, “beautiful moment”, “beautiful history”, “Strong/Stronger/Strongest”, “Win/Winning” Negative Framing Words: “They/Them” Opposition Labels: “radical left”, “fake news”, “losers and haters”, “miserable people” Ownership/Identity Words: “Our”, “our country”, “our moment”, “our beautiful history” Personal Authority Markers: “believe me”, “nobody knows more than me”, “let me tell you” Amplification Words: Numbers/Scale: “millions and millions”, “nobody ever”, “biggest”, “tremendous” Absolutist Terms:”ever”, “never”, “nobody”, “everybody”