I didn’t watch it but a 76% approval rate sounds like it went well, if you can trust CBS
It's always interesting to see how outlets present the poll numbers.
The part they don't mention is that the viewership - and therefore the respondents - were a heavily Republican lean. 51% of those polled are self-identified republicans, compared to 20% dems & 27% independents. So he pretty much had 51% approval in the bag as soon as he walked through the door.
The question that really shows how the audience stands is the one on how many people thought the president was divisive. Only 46% said yes. Anyone who was answering objectively had to say that he was divisive. He openly taunted the democrat side multiple times, repeatedly accused them of "insane" policies, name-dropped Biden more than anyone - all negatively, called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" again, etc. There's really no way to claim that he was not being intentionally divisive.
Now, that being said....
I watched most of it. Tuned in right about the time they ushered Al Green out the door. The thing that disturbed me the most frequently (other than the insanely orange color of his face - seriously Donald, if you want to fire someone...fire your makeup person) was the difference in the audience. The republican side apparently had springs in their chairs. They gave standing ovations at the end of pretty much every paragraph. I think if Trump had vomited his dinner on the dais, the republicans would have applauded. On the other side, the democrats stayed in their seats and refused to applaud
anything. I think a couple of them acknowledged the introduction of Laken Riley's mom and sister, but didn't respond to any of the subsequent actions against criminals. The camera didn't really look at their response to the kid who got into West Point, the brain cancer survivor, or the border agent that was introduced...I assume because they weren't doing anything. (As an aside....even though these were pretty obviously politically motivated emotional appeals...DT has gotten a lot better at the showmanship around these chamber appearances)
The disparity in reaction shouldn't be. Trump even said in his speech that it wouldn't matter what he did, the dems will never applaud...and I can't say he's wrong. The political polarization is too high at this point, and both sides think that any idea is bad if it comes from the other side of the aisle. There's no consideration of the merits anymore, all that matters is the source. That's insane and idiotic, and both sides are guilty. It supports my longstanding belief that we should not vote for incumbents, because everyone who's there is part of the problem.
On the issues he discussed, I think there was a lot of predictable exaggeration and mischaracterization of information to support his actions and views....which happens every time a politician speaks. There was a lot of reminding people of how great he is and how great his ideas are. Most of it was grandiosity that describes his version of utopia that isn't going to happen. He said that he's had a better start than any president ever, and claimed George Washington is #2.
My favorite moment was when he proposed - and sounded like he's planning to implement - reciprocal tariffs. Basically, whatever any country tariffs toward us, we match that in return. I've thought for years that when I'm elected president, my entire foreign policy platform would be a mirror - you tariff us, we tariff you. You don't allow our citizens to own land in your country, your citizens can't own land here. You limit our visitor visas, we limit yours. Etc. I'm not an economist, so I don't know exactly what the impacts down the road would be, but on the surface it sounds good to me.
The thing that alarmed me the most - and I barely see mentioned in the news - were his comments about the Panama canal. He announced "we're taking it back." CLaimed that 36,000 Americans died building the canal, which isn't even close to true (officially, it was about 5,600 total...and most of the laborers were Panamanians). Now, maybe this is another of those utopian things never to be attained, but it sounded a lot like saber-rattling. He followed it up by what was basically an invitation to Greenland to join the US (followed by what could be a less friendly "we'll get it one way or another"). Seems to suggest that the US is looking to return to imperialism, which doesn't seem like a great plan.
He got a little rambly in the middle, and started jumping around between topics. The Greenland discussion seemed to be connected to fighting Muslim terrorism, which seemed like a stretch. Kind of seemed like he went off the teleprompter for a while and was just giving a stream-of-consciousness address.
He said Zelensky has reached out and he may re-engage in ending the Ukraine war, said we're going to Mars, blamed Biden for the price of eggs, and said that his new tariffs may cause "a little disturbance." He finished up with the standard flowery words about how great America is and how we can work to be better...and through most of that managed to avoid saying again that he's the best.
OVerall...it was not a terribly unusual state of the union. Maybe a little more hyperbole and mischaracterization than average, but...that's not unusual for him. Talked about tax cuts, but not about how to pay for them. Talked about cutting spending, but not about maintaining services. Talked about a lot of things without presenting any kind of plan. You know...typical.
