Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
MaddowBlog-If recent history is any guide, Trump's prime-time address won't be a success
The president has repeatedly tried to strengthen his position through prime-time national addresses. His previous efforts, however, have all been duds.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
— Rollie 🤬 (@architecturenerd.bsky.social) 2026-07-15T20:50:59.426Z
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-primetime-address-thursday-2020-election
But while the public waits to hear Trump’s latest conspiratorial pitch, it’s worth appreciating the fact that the format he has chosen has not exactly served him well.
In recent decades, prime-time presidential addresses are generally reserved for major announcements about pressing matters of great significance. Trump’s prime-time presidential addresses, however, tend to be duds.
Consider some of the more notable examples.
April 1, 2026: The president delivered remarks on the war in Iran, though once it was over, no one seemed to have any idea what the point of the speech was. He presented no plan. He offered no coherent vision. Trump meandered from dubious point to dubious point and peddled a contradictory message about a possible endpoint, leaving many viewers even more concerned about the war. The New York Times’ Helene Cooper summarized, “Trump has concluded speaking after 19 minutes. … This was a rehash of his Truth Social posts over the past month.”
The speech had no discernible effect on public attitudes or his approval rating.....
Jan. 8, 2019: In the middle of a government shutdown he was responsible for, Trump delivered an Oval Office address for no apparent reason. Over the course of nine minutes, he presented no plan, offered no material, endorsed no solution and had no facts, as evidenced by the avalanche of falsehoods he peddled to the nation. Rachel Maddow asked as part of MS NOW’s live coverage, “Why did he just do this? … Why did this just happen?”
The speech also had no discernible effect on public attitudes or his approval rating.
Taken together, it’s hard not to wonder if this just isn’t Trump’s best format......
I don’t doubt that this is the idea behind the addresses, but as Hearst columnist Philip Bump explained, Trump and his team apparently haven’t figured out “that he’s dragging the gravitas down rather than it lifting him up.”
In recent decades, prime-time presidential addresses are generally reserved for major announcements about pressing matters of great significance. Trump’s prime-time presidential addresses, however, tend to be duds.
Consider some of the more notable examples.
April 1, 2026: The president delivered remarks on the war in Iran, though once it was over, no one seemed to have any idea what the point of the speech was. He presented no plan. He offered no coherent vision. Trump meandered from dubious point to dubious point and peddled a contradictory message about a possible endpoint, leaving many viewers even more concerned about the war. The New York Times’ Helene Cooper summarized, “Trump has concluded speaking after 19 minutes. … This was a rehash of his Truth Social posts over the past month.”
The speech had no discernible effect on public attitudes or his approval rating.....
Jan. 8, 2019: In the middle of a government shutdown he was responsible for, Trump delivered an Oval Office address for no apparent reason. Over the course of nine minutes, he presented no plan, offered no material, endorsed no solution and had no facts, as evidenced by the avalanche of falsehoods he peddled to the nation. Rachel Maddow asked as part of MS NOW’s live coverage, “Why did he just do this? … Why did this just happen?”
The speech also had no discernible effect on public attitudes or his approval rating.
Taken together, it’s hard not to wonder if this just isn’t Trump’s best format......
I don’t doubt that this is the idea behind the addresses, but as Hearst columnist Philip Bump explained, Trump and his team apparently haven’t figured out “that he’s dragging the gravitas down rather than it lifting him up.”