Politics

Why Trump supporters see sunshine in Trump’s dark and foreboding speeches

Published

2 years ago

January 20, 2025

The first time Donald Trump gave an inaugural address, official Washington winced.

It was a scorching and dystopian assessment of what he cast as a country in ruins — this “American carnage,” Trump said. And it was, as George W. Bush reportedly called it, “some weird shit.”

But that’s not how much of Trump’s MAGA base remembers it. Like Trump, they, too, saw a hollowed-out nation in 2017. But what Trump’s supporters mostly recalled in the president-elect — and the repeat performance they are preparing for on Monday — is redemption.

Phillip Stephens, the Republican Party chair in Robeson County, North Carolina, which shifted sharply toward Trump in November, said that what he heard from Trump in 2017 was “a lot of hopeful stuff.” And James Dickey, a former chair of the Texas Republican Party, remembered “feeling positive.”

Fixing “the degradation that we all saw and were living through … that was all part of fulfilling the Make America Great Again promise,” he said.

For the base, Dickey said, it was “refreshing.”

And if Trump’s first inaugural address was lacking in the traditionally conciliatory rhetoric of victory, his loyalists weren’t missing it that year — or expecting him to change course.

“We can talk about unity, but you know, those that are against him just aren’t going to do it,” said Sally Kizer, an organizer of a tea party group in Arizona’s Yuma County. “He’s got so many things he wants to do.”

Trump is leaning on Ross Worthington and Vince Haley, who helped shape his speeches during the campaign, to craft his inaugural address, according to two people familiar with the process and granted anonymity to describe preparations. However other advisers, including immigration hawk Stephen Miller, will have a hand in it. The president-elect told NBC News on Saturday that the theme of the speech would be “unity and strength, and also the word ‘fairness.’”

It’s that last word that may be instructive. Trump said, “Because you have to be treating people fairly. You can’t just say, ‘Oh, everything’s going to be wonderful.’ You know, we went through hell for four years with these people. And so, you know, something has to be done about it.”

As for unity, that’s the kind of rhetoric his advisers suggested he would offer before his first inaugural eight years ago, too. And it’s hard to find anyone, Republican or Democrat, who expects him to follow through.

“Do I think it will on net be negative? Yeah,” said Jason Roe, a Republican strategist in Michigan and former executive director of the state’s Republican Party, who was critical of Trump’s baseless claims about the 2020 election following his defeat that year. “I do think it will be, for Trump, more positive than normal, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Trump speech that I came away from saying, ‘Oh, that was a very hopeful speech.’”

While Trump will likely convey to Republicans “some optimism about the mandate and the opportunity” of a second Trump term, Roe said, “It’s hard to call that positive. It’s like, yeah, let’s go punch these fuckers.”

Which is exactly the kind of rhetoric that animated his supporters in the first place — and that was so breaking with custom in his first inaugural address. In that speech, Trump blistered Washington and a decaying nation of rampant crime, “mothers and children trapped in poverty” and “rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones.” It was an aberration for an inaugural address ranking “on a scale of 1 to 10, about an 11,” said Russell Riley, the co-chair of the presidential oral history program at the University of Virginia.

Since then, Trump’s oratorical range has plunged to even lower registers.

At 78 and following two impeachments, one defeat, a raft of criminal cases and two apparent assassination attempts, his rhetoric has grown angrier and more rambling over time. In his campaign rallies last year, he demonized migrants and minority groups in racist and xenophobic diatribes.

“The sense you get from the campaign rhetoric is everything is bad, it’s corrupt, it’s rotten,” Riley said.

He cited Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew and George Wallace, who brought their own “coarse contributions to rhetoric. But nothing like what we’ve experienced in the last 10 years or so.”

Much of that is Trump’s contribution. But in some ways, Riley said, “what he was doing was surfing the wave. He discovered that sort of coarsened rhetoric worked, so he took part in it, and he showed you could be successful politically for taking part in it. So these two things, they interact with one another, they build on one another. Presidential rhetoric always participates in the broader trends in the culture.”

There is another trend in the culture, too — our partisanship — reflected in Trump’s polarizing remarks in 2017, and likely again on Monday. He will take office amid contentious Cabinet appointment hearings. On Wednesday, Joe Biden — hardly an eloquent speaker, but not a crass one, either, at ease invoking Seamus Heaney or William Butler Yeats — warned in his grim farewell address of a democracy-threatening “oligarchy” in America.

Trump, said Ken Khachigian, a former Ronald Reagan speechwriter, would be well served to deliver a straightforward and restrained address. But it would be nonsensical, he said, for him to give a speech about this being “a time for warmth and unity, when hardly anybody means it.”

Even if he did deliver such an address, Khachigian said, “24 hours later [Chuck] Schumer’s going to have his stiletto out and try to cut his guts open.”

Political discourse in America, he said, has devolved into “a lot of anger all the time.”

Trump capitalized on that public sentiment in his campaign. And when it comes to anger in his speech-making, he’s on a planet of his own. It’s unclear what policies he will discuss on Monday. But he has promised to deport millions of immigrants starting on “Day One.” He has pledged to dismantle whole swaths of the bureaucracy and called forrevenge on his political enemies, including by prosecuting them.

“His inaugural address might be a reading of arrest warrants,” mused David Blaska, a former Dane County, Wisconsin, supervisor who worked as a speechwriter for former GOP Gov. Tommy Thompson and who supported Trump in 2020, but not in 2024.

“Part of the rapture,” Blaska said, “is that the sinners are cast into hell.”

Dasha Burns contributed to this report.

Politics

Gavin Newsom’s first 2028 test: This fall, in Nevada

Published

1 day ago

September 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

LAS VEGAS — If California Gov. Gavin Newsom runs for president in 2028, next-door Nevada will be a crucial test. This fall’s governor’s race is offering a preview.

As GOP Gov. Joe Lombardo runs for reelection, he’s trying to pin high Nevada fuel prices — a majority of which is imported from California — on “Gavin Newsom’s energy policies.” He lambasts California as too expensive and too regulated. And he’s hammering his Democratic opponent, Attorney General Aaron Ford, for accepting Newsom’s endorsement, betting that it will turn off Nevada swing voters.

“The contrast is simple: I’m fighting Gavin Newsom’s agenda and Aaron Ford is trying to import it into Nevada,” Lombardo said in a statement to Blue Light News.

This could be a test run for 2028, when Newsom may call upon Nevadans — one-fifth of whom were born in California — to deliver him a primary victory in the early-voting state, and possibly a presidential victory.

“They understand California costs more,” Donna West, chair of the Nevada Democratic Party’s senior caucus, said of Nevada’s California expats. “They also understand that California is the fourth-largest economy in the entire world, and that Gavin Newsom ran that as effectively as he possibly can.”

Newsom’s office declined to comment. A person close to the governor, granted anonymity to discuss the sentiment in his orbit, said they are “thrilled” Republicans are spending money to “plaster Newsom’s name across a key early state.”

“Republicans seem awfully concerned about an endorsement from someone who leads the 2028 Democratic field in Nevada by nearly 2-to-1,” the person said, pointing to a November 2025 Emerson poll of a hypothetical 2028 Democratic primary field.

Ford, for his part, shrugs off the attacks.

“Lombardo tries to cast blame elsewhere, but everyone knows that when the war started in February, that we saw our gas prices increase almost immediately,” Ford told Blue Light News after a recent town hall in Las Vegas. “People believe their own eyes, and they remember their experiences.”

The demonization of California is nothing new in Nevada politics: For years, Republicans have blasted their western neighbor as too expensive and too woke.

But the stakes are higher, and the connection more palpable, this year, as Newsom explores a presidential bid. He would likely need to perform very well in Nevada, now second on the Democratic calendar, to build early momentum toward the party nomination. And come November 2028, he’d need to fare well in Nevada again, this time among the state’s general electorate, a plurality of which are independents.

Newsom has stumped for Democrats across the country this cycle, and he blitzed through the South this week, including a swing through South Carolina, whose Democrats will vote first, right before Nevada, in 2028.

But Republicans are looking to weaponize Newsom’s Silver State swing in July, where Ford introduced him at a new Las Vegas field office as “the governor of the great state of California.”

“Our next president!” an audience member shouted, eliciting cheers.

The Lombardo-aligned Better Nevada PAC shared polling with Blue Light News in July showing Newsom’s favorability 20 points underwater in Nevada and losing a hypothetical 2028 head-to-head with Vice President JD Vance. Shortly thereafter, the PAC began an ad blitz tying Ford to the California governor.

Billboards touting Newsom’s endorsement of Ford, paid for by the PAC, now line highways across Nevada, and digital and streaming ads have run consistently since the visit. “Newsom and Ford: Shared vision. Shared values,” one ad says.

A person familiar with the PAC’s internal polling, granted anonymity to discuss private data, said it shows Newsom’s endorsement is now the second-most-known datapoint about the attorney general.

“Gavin Newsom is the singular most unpopular elected official in Nevada,” said Jeremy Hughes, a longtime Nevada GOP strategist running the Lombardo-aligned PAC. “Aaron Ford brought him into the state. … There’s no better way to help him out than to put up these signs and run ads, letting people know that he’s excited about being endorsed by Gavin Newsom.”

Republicans in the state have long blamed Californian expats for housing shortages and rising prices and connect their opponents to California liberals. A surge of ex-Californians leaving the state during the Covid-19 pandemic, some fleeing high taxes and cost of living, accelerated the trend.

Sam Brown, the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate in 2022, blasted the “energy policies of Gavin Newsom”; in 2018, GOP governor nominee Adam Laxalt lamented the “Californization” of Nevada, even as Californians bankrolled his campaign. During Lombardo’s first run for governor in 2022, he slammed incumbent Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak for taking his cues from Newsom: “Don’t let Steve Sisolak turn Nevada into California,” one post said. Republicans tied their opponents to Nancy Pelosi for decades.

Lombardo’s argument this time around is more focused. He notes that the vast majority of Nevada’s gasoline comes from California, and argues that California’s efforts to cut carbon emissions have caused fuel prices to soar. A gallon of gas in Nevada costs nearly $5, according to AAA, one of the highest prices in the nation.

“The policies coming from Gavin Newsom and California Democrats … don’t stop at their state line,” Lombardo said in a statement. “Nevada and other states import a significant portion of our fuel from California, so when Governor Newsom shuts down refineries and imposes regulations that reduce supply and increase costs, Nevada families feel the consequences at the pump.”

It’s a strategy that allows Lombardo — running in a difficult national environment for incumbent Republicans — to acknowledge voters’ economic pain without blaming President Donald Trump or his own party. Indeed, Lombardo shared an April column in the Nevada Independent that placed blame at the feet of both Newsom and Trump. (Lombardo, in his post, blamed only Newsom.)

Democrats don’t think voters will buy it. ‘“As far as gas prices, it’s so obviously increased since the war,” Rep. Dina Titus said. “People in Nevada aren’t stupid.”

Ford has his own millstone to saddle Lombardo with: the president. At a recent town hall in Las Vegas, he repeatedly blasted the “Lombardo-Trump economy” that is “making everything too expensive.”

“Voters absolutely tie the handling of the economy to Trump,” said Mike Noble, an independent Phoenix-based pollster who works in Nevada regularly. “Instead of blaming Trump, why not tie it to the boogeyman next door and blame California?”

Politics

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

Published

2 days ago

September 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

lead image

Politics

Trump wants the Postal Service to radically overhaul mail voting. But ballots are already going out.

Published

4 days ago

September 4, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump’s controversial demands for the Postal Service to overhaul and monitor millions of mail ballots hit another snag on Friday, when North Carolina became the first state in the nation to start sending out ballots for the November election.

In March, Trump signed the initial executive order, which aimed to crack down on mail-in voting — which he regularly alleges without evidence is a vector for widespread voter fraud — and assert an unprecedented amount of federal control over the upcoming elections.

Under this order and the subsequent rule drafted by the U.S. Postal Service, the USPS would refuse to deliver ballots to states that failed to provide lists of eligible mail voters or did not adhere to an approved envelope design style.

Since then, the order has faced legal challenges, and it remains paused by a federal judge’s orders. But the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the new rule to proceed — something current and former election officials from both parties say would be both a legal nightmare that oversteps the federal government’s traditional role in elections and a logistical one that is happening far too close to the November election to implement even if they agreed with it.

“Why the hell are you rocking the boat this late in the game?” said Stephen Richer, a former Republican recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, who has clashed with Trump allies for defending the security of the 2020 election.

Still, election officials are trying to project a sense of normalcy for voters, particularly in North Carolina, which serves as a test of whether established local election systems can operate normally amid intensifying federal scrutiny.

“I want to emphasize this point because there has been a lot of outside noise: Our county workers are ready,” Sam Hayes, a longtime Republican lawyer in the state and now executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, said in a Thursday afternoon press conference.

He added, “All we can do is what we’re doing. … It is business as usual as far as I’m concerned.”

Despite the legal challenges, the Trump administration has continued to press the courts to let it proceed. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift an order from a Massachusetts judge which temporarily prevents the USPS from enforcing their rule. It is the second time the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in, after winning an earlier victory in which the high court dismissed an earlier hold on the rule as premature.

“The uncertainty is coming from a single activist judge who continues to try and obstruct President Trump from implementing commonsense measures to protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans vote in American elections,” White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement. “These safeguards for mail ballots were proposed months ago giving election officials ample time to prepare for the 2026 election.”

The USPS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Election officials said that if the rule goes into effect this close to November, it would cause chaos and place added strain on the USPS and election officials. And an anonymous federal whistleblower said in a report circulated earlier this week by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that the USPS was moving forward in a “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed process” to try to implement the new system ahead of the midterms.

In the coming weeks, states across the country will follow North Carolina’s lead. Nine other states will begin mailing ballots in the next two weeks, according to a tracker from the National Conference of State Legislatures — with the biggest day for mailing coming 45 days before the election in mid-September.

“It would be so outrageous to try to let this go into effect. It’s hard to even imagine,” said Ben Hovland, a senior fellow for democracy at the progressive think tank Center for American Progress and former Democratic commissioner with the Election Assistance Commission who was fired by Trump in July.

He added, “It would be a break-glass moment for our democracy.”

The rule would require meticulous changes to ballot handling and tracking practices that Hovland said are impossible to implement before Election Day in about two months, effectively disenfranchising millions of voters.

“Ballots are printed. Envelopes are printed. You can go on and on with all the practical reasons that show that implementing something like this at this time is not feasible,” he said.

Richer said he doubted the new rules would bring about more security. Even if the USPS received lists from the states, according to the postal service’s final rule, it would not do any additional vetting of the list, Richer said.

“It’s just that the mail ballots have to be on that list, and I don’t see what added value for election integrity that does,” he said.

He added, “It creates a lot of administrative burden, and I think it creates a lot more opportunity for error.”

While a decision looms in the courts, election officials and experts cast doubt on the likelihood of the rules going into effect before November. A more pressing issue, they said, is the confusion and uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots, which could subvert and change the behaviors of voters.

“It makes things seem messy or difficult, and it can dissuade people from participating or coming out to vote,” Hovland said. “It certainly also helps establish a pretext to make bad faith claims about election results.”

Hovland said that while none of these claims of voter fraud are backed up with facts, they could cause Americans to lose faith in the voting process.

Still, some current officials contended they were well-prepared for whatever happens — and that they’d be able to communicate effectively with voters who have become increasingly buffeted by dramatic rhetoric about the once-unmentioned nuts and bolts of actually running an election.

“There’s always a lot of noise around elections, that’s not going to change, and it can be hard to differentiate that from what’s actually going on on the ground,” said Jason Tyson, director of external affairs for the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

As Election Day approaches, Tyson and election officials said they urge voters to check their registration status and make a plan to vote.

He added, “I think we’ve got a really well-trained, solid staff who are ready, and who have gone through all of the checks and balances and points of contact that we need to do to get to where we are.”