The annual State of the Union address is traditionally a special night for political Washington DC as well as everyone who follows and covers politics, wherever they may be. The address is sometimes referred to as the Super Bowl for political nerds.

So as a curtain-raiser, it was probably ominous that Sunday’s actual Super Bowl was one of the poorest in recent years – with the fewest points scored, as well as something last night’s star player would hate: the lowest TV ratings for the big show in more than a decade. One widely-circulated tweet summed up the disappointing spectacle:

And sure enough, some of the players from the victorious New England Patriots wasted no time in saying they wouldn’t be making the trip.

Could President Trump recover from such a setback? Before last night’s speech, speculation abounded about what might be included, from the serious, like this on foreign policy by David A Wemer at the Atlantic Council, to this slice of comedic genius from GOP strategist Rick Wilson. Expectations generally were not high, but at least it sounded like the President had plenty of time to work on it, particularly given the delay due to the record-setting government shutdown he would subsequently fail to mention.

Bloomberg reported on the “11 words” the White House wanted to hear about the speech in their messaging instructions to Republican surrogates. For the bingo cards of those following at home, they were: “visionary,” “unifying,” “commonsense,” “hopeful,” “patriotic,” “inclusive,” “inspiring,” “clarifying,” “strong,” “optimistic” and “confident.” Perhaps predictably, it led some Twitter wits to pronounce that the 11 words they were really hoping to hear were: “I hereby resign the office of President of the United States.”

As 9pm approached, the nation was reassured we would be in safe hands in the event of an – unpredictable – catastrophe, when it was announced that the evening’s designated survivor would be Dancing with the Stars contestant and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

In the run-up, cable news shows featured endless talking head previews all day, with on-screen countdown graphics anticipating the moment the President stepped to the podium to tell the nation what was on his mind. When it came, Donald Trump’s second official State of the Union clocked in at 82 minutes – longer even than last year’s address and the longest since Bill Clinton’s in 2000.

But this year he was facing what he’d consider a more hostile environment, with the House now controlled by Democrats under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, watching over his shoulder, and a record number of women members of Congress sitting before him, dressed in suffragette white.

As for the speech itself, Jordan Fabian at The Hill wrote that it “veered between comity and confrontation,” challenging Democrats to “reject the politics of revenge, resistance and retribution,” even as he demanded they approve a border wall they have long opposed.

“Trump peppered his speech with appeals for bipartisan unity, saying Americans want to see both sides “govern not as two parties but as one nation.” But his message, which also included numerous barbs at Democrats, reflected the deep partisan divisions in Washington he has helped fuel during his two years in the Oval Office.”

Coming almost immediately after the longest government shutdown in history over Trump’s insistence on funding for his controversial border wall, it was inevitable that the theme of security loomed large, with plenty of rhetoric on the “onslaught” of illegal immigrants and the President doubling down on the approaching caravans by saying he had ordered more troops to the southern border.

Politico said Trump’s lack of apparent willingness to compromise on the wall was a “call to unity on his terms.”

Reactions generally were as you might expect from a polarized punditry. Brian Stelter at CNN contrasted “competing realities,” from his own network’s Van Jones, who called the speech “psychotically incoherent,” to Fox’s Lou Dobbs, who said the president “just delivered the nation a hallelujah moment!” The President’s family were also suitably impressed:

Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post found the speech “boring” because Trump’s “slow delivery lacked energy and seemed designed to lull rather than engage his audience.” The FT’s Edward Luce called it “part sleeping pill, part Nuremburg,” while Richard Wolffe, writing at The Guardian, said through his delivery Trump had succeeded in uniting the country… in horror.

“[He] was sorely in need of more zingers… if not a pile of crushed amphetamine. He was, in his own words, extraordinarily low energy.

“He halted at the end of every half-line as if surprised by the phrases and policies that followed. Almost like he was reading the speech from his prompter for the first time. Almost like he’s spent the last year watching cable television and rage tweeting instead of bringing people together or boning up about policy.

“His hand gestures were expansive in ways that his policies obviously aren’t. His words were elastic in ways that his mind obviously isn’t.”

There were a few encouraging moments – the chamber singing “Happy Birthday” to a Holocaust survivor, or the image of a sleeping boy the Trumps had invited because he was being bullied for sharing the president’s surname. But the lasting memories – if any State of the Union is ever really remembered – will centre around some pretty dark and disturbing rhetoric: notably on the wall, Venezuela and the prospect of socialism as well as quite a leap while announcing a second summit with North Korea.

And in what seemed like something of a desperate line, Trump argued for an end to the Mueller probe, saying “An economic miracle is taking place in the US, and the only things that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, and ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation.”

The New York Times fact-checked the content pretty thoroughly as always (although to what extent that matters by now is debatable) and the paper’s editorial called the speech a “message of unity from an agent of discord,” and that seems as good a summary as any.

“Mr. Trump’s soothing message, in short, was wholly at odds with the acrid reality of how he has governed. In that way, the entire spectacle — reflected in the vibrating hostility between the two sides trapped together in the House chamber — evinced the true state of the union: fractured, fractious, painfully dysfunctional.”

 

‘We are coming for America…’

In contrast, the President’s speech was followed by a lively, interesting and – yes – inspiring Democratic response from Stacey Abrams, who in November’s midterms narrowly lost her controversial race for Governor of Georgia. It represented two firsts: the first such response by a black woman and also by someone not holding elected office. The latter was probably a decision that made sense, to keep a level playing field as Democrats are declaring or weighing a run for the Presidency next year, but Abrams’ performance more than justified the party’s choice.

Projecting authenticity and empathy, Abrams, who apparently wrote the speech herself used her short address to touch on pretty much everything that needed to be said in response to the previous hour and a half; while laying the groundwork for what needs to be debated over the next year and a half.

Undoubtedly there are challenges for Trump going forward as he looks towards the 2020 election. David Leonhardt at the New York Times looked at the “real state of the union” in charts, and it’s not pretty. But there’s one upside: perhaps, if he’s giving the speech next year, President Trump can use the ‘Automatic SOTU Generator’ described by the Washington Post’s Philip Bump: