Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Point of hors d'oevre

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                         

SOTU applause-o-meter

Show who approves/disapproves of different parts of a State of the Union address
  (-1)
(-1)
  [vote for,
against]

During the President's State of the Union address, there were some remarks which garnered universal applause, some of which garnered mixed applause, and some of which garnered absolutely partisan applause.

It would be nice to have an instantly-tabulated graphic showing who was applauding or not. This would be especially useful in cases where one side was sitting except for one or two people who bucked the tide; it would be nice to know who those people were.

supercat, Jan 28 2003

[link]






       i was wondering what was going on there. i'm not american so i don't know if they're seated according to allegiance or whatever. it seemed to me that when one column gave a standing ovation, and only a couple of people in another stood, they received some dirty looks from the people who remained seated. i'd like to see this - anyone who claps when bush talks crap about attacking iraq should have their address flashed up on the screen and a note as to when the speech ends, giving any peace-loving thieves watching the chance to go rob these war-mongering assholes. feel free to delete this if you like bush.
sambwiches, Jan 28 2003
  

       you can have yourself a fresh croissant anyway. the idea isn't bad.
sambwiches, Jan 28 2003
  

       sambwiches: The seating was indeed by party. When one side was standing and the other wasn't, most of the standing people were Republicans and the non-standing people were Democrats.
supercat, Jan 28 2003
  

       CNN did something similar a few years ago. They took applause volume readings throughout the speech, and showed the points that got the loudest/longest clappage.   

       I'm not sure what you'd do with your information, though supercat. Can't see much use for it.
waugsqueke, Jan 28 2003
  

       no stats shown on tv have any real purpose. its just eye candy to take your mind off the fact that you're watching a bunch of old men clap at a monkey.
sambwiches, Jan 28 2003
  

       //I'm not sure what you'd do with your information, though supercat. Can't see much use for it.//   

       It could be useful as a gauge of how certain politicians stand (or not) on certain issues. Useful not so much during the show as for study afterward (e.g. if a certain Republican showed a definite trend of sitting alone among his peers while certain Democrat showed a trend of standing alone). I would be curious to know what Sen. McCain (Bush's Republican presidential rival) and Sen. Edwards (elected as a Republican; switched to "independent") were doing, e.g.
supercat, Jan 28 2003
  

       just imagine watching baseball on tv without having stats thrown at you every other second. what would the commentators talk about? stats make tv more interesting for everyone, especially those who have trouble with long words. rock on.
sambwiches, Jan 28 2003
  

       You could give all of the politicians a little rotating knob that moves a graph over time of positive/negative opinion, similar to the "worm" used for the debate before an Australian election. The studio audience is given this knob, and they move it according to who they believe more. The graph goes from Labour to Liberal (the two debater's parties) over time. This could be adapted to show level of agreement and show two lines, red and blue, to show the democrat/republican opinions respectively. (+)
reap, Jan 29 2003
  

       I bet each party's business managers have always made VERY detailed notes on who applauds what ......
8th of 7, Jan 29 2003
  

       The "staged applause-a-thons" exist in part to let people (the President, congress members, and the viewing public) know which of the President's proposals are supported by whom.   

       If a congresscritter sits on his hands when the President proposed something that turned out to be good and well-received by the public, that's an indication that that congresscritter's views are different from those of the President and public. Conversely, however, if a congresscritter sits on his hands while the President proposes something that turns out to be a disaster, that congresscritter can say "See, I told you so".
supercat, Jan 29 2003
  

       But surely, supercat, anything the President proposes during his SOTU is going to have to go through Congress to actually happen anyway. Said congresscritter will have his/her say at that point, in a very public way. Voting records are available online. You can just check how they vote on these issues.   

       This will ultimately save time and worry, since probably half of what is said in the speech will never see the light of day anyway, history shows us.
waugsqueke, Jan 29 2003
  

       I wonder how the clapping would have compared for the difference between spending on AIDS (15 billion over next 5 yrs.) to the spending on offence, sorry defence, ($369 billion for 2003) if he had mentioned both figures in the same speech?
briandamage, Jan 29 2003
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle