By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent CNN snap poll indicates President Trump’s latest State of the Union address garnered the weakest positive reaction of any modern address, even among viewers who typically support the president. While a majority of speech-watchers offered at least a somewhat positive view, enthusiasm was notably thin, with a significant percentage rating the speech negatively, an unusually narrow gap for such an event. This trend of declining “very positive” scores from previous addresses suggests a struggle to energize his base, which could impact upcoming elections. However, the White House maintains that the President is delivering on a popular agenda, citing an overwhelming election mandate and historic progress.
Read the original article here
It appears Donald Trump’s recent State of the Union address has landed with a thud in terms of public reception, with polling suggesting it was the least popular of its kind this century. This isn’t particularly surprising when you consider a few key factors that likely contributed to its lukewarm reception.
For starters, Trump has consistently been a historically unpopular president. This alone sets a certain baseline for how his addresses might be received. When the leader of the nation is already viewed unfavorably by a significant portion of the population, any official communication is likely to face an uphill battle in gaining broad approval.
Furthermore, State of the Union speeches delivered in non-presidential years often see a dip in viewership. This is a general trend, independent of who is in office. People might be less inclined to tune in when there isn’t a pressing election cycle or major legislative push directly tied to the address, leading to a naturally smaller audience.
Beyond these broader points, Trump himself is not known for his oratorical prowess. In fact, he’s often described as a historically bad speaker, with a tendency to speak for extended periods. It’s worth noting that he holds the record for the two longest State of the Union addresses, a fact that likely contributed to the perception of his speeches as lengthy and potentially tedious affairs.
The sheer duration of his speeches seems to alienate a significant portion of the audience. The idea of sitting through a nearly two-hour monologue from any politician can be daunting, but when it’s from someone who is already a divisive figure and known for rambling, the appeal diminishes significantly. It felt less like a formal address and more like an extended television program, a format that may not resonate with viewers seeking substantive policy discussions.
Many observers felt the speech was filled with inaccuracies or outright falsehoods. Specific policy areas, such as tariffs, were pointed to as having negative consequences like increased prices and a struggling job market. These criticisms suggest a disconnect between the optimistic narrative presented and the perceived reality of the economic situation.
The style of delivery also seemed to be a major turn-off for many. Descriptions likened it to a rambling, unfocused monologue, akin to someone who has had a bit too much to drink at a local bar. The disheveled appearance, nonsensical stories, and incomplete sentences painted a picture of a disjointed and unconvincing performance.
The lack of significant online outrage or widespread discussion on platforms like Reddit further fueled the sentiment that the speech was largely ignored. The expectation of strong reactions and debates seemed to fall flat, suggesting that the address failed to generate the buzz or controversy that might have been anticipated.
There’s a sentiment that perhaps a different standard should be applied when discussing consequences for actions, especially for those in positions of power. The idea of a two-tier justice system, where the wealthy and influential face more severe repercussions, reflects a broader concern about fairness and accountability.
Some felt that the “this century” metric for unpopularity might be too narrow, suggesting a longer historical comparison, perhaps the last 100 years, would provide a more accurate picture of Trump’s enduring unpopularity. This points to a perception that his negative reception is not a recent phenomenon but a long-standing issue.
The physical appearance of the speaker was also a point of disgust for some, leading to an immediate aversion to watching or listening. This visceral reaction, independent of the content, underscores the deep-seated dislike many have for him. This sentiment is extended to the idea that he is the most unpopular president not just of this century, but potentially much further back.
For many, the content of Trump’s speeches simply lacks value, making them an easy pass. The hope was that the ratings would reflect this lack of interest. The sentiment of actively avoiding watching to deny him an audience speaks volumes about the level of disengagement.
The irony of a figure often described as divisive delivering a “State of the Union” address was not lost on some. The contrast between the unifying ideal of the speech and the polarizing nature of the speaker was noted. Some found more engaging and even ironically relevant entertainment in other media, highlighting a preference for content that, while also depicting conflict, felt more coherent or less personally irritating.
The address was frequently characterized as a rally rather than a policy-focused speech, filled with what were perceived as lies. This distinction is important, as it suggests a shift in the purpose and perceived authenticity of the event. The question of “why would anyone watch?” echoes the sentiment that the speech offered little of substance or credibility.
The label of “absolute worst president of all time” and the accusation of constant lying are strong indicators of the deep-seated disapproval. The idea of not wanting to listen to a “rambling dementia patient spewing bullshit” illustrates a dismissive and contemptuous view of his communication style and mental acuity.
Some found alternative activities to be far more appealing and productive than watching the speech, reinforcing the idea that the address failed to capture attention or provide any compelling reason to tune in. The choice of smoking pot and playing chess highlights a desire for engagement with activities that are perceived as more enjoyable or enriching.
Given that the current century is still relatively young, the claim of it being the “least popular this century” might actually understate the perceived negativity if the comparison were extended further back in time. This suggests a potential for even greater historical unpopularity if the data were to encompass a longer period.
The presence of multiple figures together, whose combined presence was unappealing, also contributed to the decision not to watch. This suggests a negative association with the speaker that extends to those who appear alongside him.
The reference to a range of negative issues, such as unemployment, inflation, tax increases, national debt, and allegations of cover-ups within government departments, paints a grim picture of the state of affairs under the Trump administration. This context likely made the optimistic rhetoric of the speech seem out of touch with reality for many.
The feeling of being unable to “stomach” listening to Trump anymore is a strong indicator of fatigue and revulsion. The repetition of his speaking patterns – the whiny voice, limited vocabulary, gaslighting, dwelling on past grievances, taking credit for successes while blaming others for failures, and scapegoating – creates a predictable and exasperating experience for many listeners. The plea to “just stop talking” encapsulates this feeling of exhaustion with his rhetoric.
The assertion that the address was a rally, not a State of the Union, is a recurring theme. This framing suggests a perceived shift in the nature of the event, from a formal presidential address to a political campaign stump speech. The question “Gee, I sure do wonder why” is a sarcastic dismissal of the idea that the speech was well-received.
The notion that the worse the country is doing, the more lies are needed, and the longer the speech becomes, points to a cynical view of political communication. The observation that the “least popular are also the longest lasting” in terms of speeches is a puzzling characteristic that suggests a desire to dominate the airwaves, even if it means alienating the audience.
The visual of Trump holding onto the lectern for dear life suggests physical frailty and a desperate grip on his position. The assumption that people turned off and went to bed implies that the speech failed to hold attention and was seen as a mundane or tiresome event.
The strong condemnation of Trump as the “worst president in the history of presidents,” coupled with descriptions like “low energy,” “bruised hands,” and “full diaper,” reveals a deep level of contempt and personal dislike. The idea of a “pedo friendly liar” is a particularly harsh and disturbing accusation. The reference to a “crotchety old con artist trying to BS his way through all this stuff” highlights the perception of insincerity and deception.
The metaphor of “most people don’t like shit because it stinks and makes you sick” is a blunt but effective way to describe the negative reaction. Comparing the speech to “Facebook as a person” suggests it was filled with triviality, negativity, and a general lack of substance.
The concern about inadvertently giving the “doofus ratings” by watching reflects a desire to deny him attention, even if it means missing out on a supposedly significant event. The fact that some, like a father described, are compelled to watch despite their dislike highlights a complex relationship with the news and political figures.
The idea that the State of the Union speech itself has become less valuable, regardless of who is president, suggests a broader weariness with the tradition. The sentiment that “these polls mean nothing” indicates a distrust in the accuracy of polling data, particularly when it comes to deeply polarized political figures. The acknowledgment that a significant portion of the nation will remain loyal regardless of circumstances (“support this man into their grave”) highlights the entrenched nature of political division.
The decision not to waste time on what was anticipated to be an “inane, childish, rambling, and incoherent” speech is a clear signal of disengagement. The observation that even the comprehensible parts were lacking further emphasizes the perceived low quality of the address. The comment about his face looking “photoshopped onto his head” is a surreal observation that points to a perceived artificiality or distortion.
Despite the lack of widespread viewership, the expectation of “crazy sound bites” to emerge highlights the enduring anticipation of provocative or shocking statements from Trump, even from those who choose not to watch. The gentle framing of “calling that a speech is being remarkably kind” sets the stage for a critique of its content and form.
The repeated characterization of the speech as “self-congratulatory drivel mixed with prejudices and rants” underscores the perception that it was more about personal grievances and biased opinions than policy. The dismissal of his typical “Biden let rapists and drug dealers murder millions of people” lines as lacking “substantial interest” reflects a weariness with his familiar talking points.
The comment about him not falling asleep suggests a concern about his stamina or engagement, while the observation about detractors and supporters lacking attention spans hints at a broader societal issue of political polarization and an inability to engage with opposing viewpoints. The feeling of being physically ill, even from the initial applause, demonstrates a profound emotional and visceral reaction to his presence and message. The analogy of “You can’t piss on me anymore and call it rain” signifies a refusal to be deceived or manipulated by false narratives.
The act of turning off the speech halfway through, even for someone who has watched them their whole life, is a powerful testament to its unwatchability. The comparison to a “1939 Madison Square Garden Nazi Rally in the year 2026” is a deeply alarming and critical assessment, suggesting a perceived descent into dangerous ideologies. The shame and fear for the country’s future highlight the gravity of these concerns.
The direct statement “It’s because he’s objectively horrible!” serves as a blunt explanation for the unpopularity, bypassing nuance. The notion that it’s “catnip for his cult, and nails on a chalkboard for everyone else” accurately captures the polarized reaction. The predictable nature of his speech, coupled with the unnecessary length, is seen as a deliberate choice to prolong his pronouncements.
The extended focus on the USA hockey team, consuming over ten minutes of the speech, is highlighted as an example of misplaced priorities and a departure from the expected State of the Union agenda. The quote “people tell me they are tired of winning” is presented as a nonsensical and out-of-touch remark.
The overall sentiment is that the country is in a dire state when Trump is president and still actively supported. The critique extends beyond Trump to the Republican party and suggests a broader disillusionment with the political system, framing it as a struggle between the rich and the poor where the poor are manipulated into blaming each other. The contradictory messages of “not good” and “golden age” encapsulate the perceived incoherence of his messaging. The reference to the “art of the deal” being absent from his speeches suggests a lack of strategic communication or substance. The belief that Trump primarily makes speeches for himself, driven by a “power of positive thinking bullshit” to manifest reality, paints him as self-delusional and desperate to convince himself of his own success and importance.