The chapter investigates the persuasiveness of moral rhetoric, that is, effects on nonsupporters of the party. Based on insights from previous work, I develop theoretical expectations that suggest that moral rhetoric is unlikely to be persuasive, or make nonsupporters see the party more favorably. Previous studies on moral persuasion suggest moral-value alignment between a moral message and the recipient can make the message persuasive. Yet previous work on attitudinal bias suggest that moral rhetoric may be unpersuasive regardless of moral alignment and even further alienate nonsupporters with negative preexisting attitudes. I test the hypotheses using experiments in Britain. I find that moral rhetoric does not easily convince nonsupporters. However, moral rhetoric can be quite persuasive when the message is strong and the party has moral credibility. Under those conditions, moral rhetoric increases favorable attitudes, on average and among nonsupporters who prioritize the moral intuition in the message. There is no evidence that moral rhetoric further alienates hostile nonsupporters. The findings present a rather optimistic picture about the persuasiveness of moral rhetoric.