Sánchez sets aside the Urda accident and says he will armor pensions and abortion in the Constitution.

Pedro Sánchez, the Prime Minister and PSOE candidate, stated in a pre-campaign event that he would shield the revaluation of pensions according to the CPI in the Constitution and ensure an annual increase in the minimum interprofessional wage (SMI) during his term. He also promised to shield the right to abortion in the Constitution, arguing it is an inalienable right that must be protected. Sánchez sought a broad and progressive majority in Congress and the Senate to achieve social achievements more quickly, warning against the "ultraright wave of Feijóo and Abascal." Regarding the recent Urda railway accident, Sánchez set aside reference to it during his speech, stating that the key is how the government responds to crises. He contrasted his management with Mario Rajoy regarding infrastructure investment. Furthermore, he called for a massive vote on November 29th to ensure a government that defends Spanish interests against external pressures.

The discourse reveals a strategic framing where immediate domestic socio-economic guarantees (pensions, wages, abortion rights) are linked directly to a broader political mandate: achieving a "broad and progressive majority" to counteract perceived external ideological pressures. The deliberate setting aside of the Urda accident—a tangible human tragedy—in favor of constitutional and economic promises suggests a prioritization of political positioning over immediate empathy for specific events, functioning as a form of narrative control. Sánchez frames the political struggle not just as policy debate but as a binary choice between progressive advancement and "involution," positioning the vote itself as the ultimate boundary between these states. The comparison drawn against Feijóo and Abascal positions the current political alignment as an existential threat, implying that failure to vote in favor of the desired majority leads to a collapse of fundamental rights, thereby invoking a structure of fear to mobilize support rather than reasoned deliberation over specific policy details. The reliance on appeals for a "massive vote" functions to bypass detailed scrutiny by channeling public energy toward a single, emotionally charged electoral action, suggesting that cognitive sovereignty is challenged when complex realities are reduced to an essential dichotomy of 'progress' versus 'involution.'