Local Government TV

Monday, July 06, 2020

Wolf's Covid-19 Approval Rating Drops

According to the latest polling data from Fox43 and Susquehanna Polling and Research, there is much less public support for Governor Tom Wolf's management of the Covid-19 crisis. In April, he enjoyed a 69% approval rating. That number has dropped to 49%.

That same poll, conducted among 715 voters, gives Joe Biden a five-point edge over Donald Trump.

Nearly a quarter of those polled identified themselves as independent.

22 comments:

  1. Susquehanna Polling and Research Poll 8/2016: Clinton 47% Trump 37%

    https://www.politicspa.com/susquehanna-poll-clinton-47-trump-37/77606/

    What's the point? This poll is consistently wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe the disapprovers would rather live in Florida, Texas, or Arizona. Even in Gov. Wolf hasn't been perfect, he's been better--a lot better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "What's the point? This poll is consistently wrong."

    You cite one instance in which this poll was wrong to assert it is "consistently" wrong. That is illogical.

    "Maybe the disapprovers would rather live in Florida, Texas, or Arizona."

    Maybe they would. The nursing home deaths are lower there than they are in Wolf's killing fields.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd like to know where the 49% are. I can't find anyone who doesn't viscerally hate him after what he did. Killing the elderly was bad and should be investigated and prosecuted, where required. His calling business opening protesters cowards, just before running out to BLM marches, while still focing attendance limits on funerals, was the last straw. It's the same coarse, meanness people hate in Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I concur the stay at home order then being with BLM shows one thing he's not worried about reelection because this is his last term in office so fuck the small guy

      Delete
  5. Oh, so you mean there still are people alive in nursing homes so that they can respond to polls?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Trump supporters are clinging to the belief that polls "were wrong" in 2016 and hoping for a repeat in 2020.

    He had low support in the summer of 2016 as many Republicans who had supported Cruz/Bush/Kasich were not moving over to Trump due to the way he campaigned in the primaries. Many remained reluctant deep into September and October, but Trump's polling #s were climbing in that time period as non-Trump R's couldn't bring themselves to sit out the election or worse actually vote for Clinton.

    Clinton definitely got smug, diverted resources and ad buys to Arizona and other swing states in an effort to "run up the score" and took Wisconsin, Ohio & Pennsylvania for granted which obviously backfired badly.

    From early October, aggregated polling showed Trump gaining and/or Clinton losing a percentage point per week, with an average for Clinton on Nov 8th being up 3.2%, which is within a margin for error and not entirely unsurprising given the popular/electoral results split.

    The Comey letter came out on Oct 28th. Clinton was leading with an average between 5.2-5.8% that week and polling obviously cratered from there.

    The polling #'s now are much different. The Biden vs Clinton unfavorables are much different and Trump had MUCH higher independent voter support than he does now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What are the nursing home deaths in Florida, Texas and Arizona. Betcha 1/10 of Pa. Great leadership, Commissar Wolf and his Nancy sidekick Thing 1.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rachel Levine for POTUS, 2014!

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1.43
    " Wolf's killing fields" gee on par with the "put on your mask and get on the cattle car" cartoon.
    As to the nursing home deaths your hindsight is always perfect.
    However when it was occurring you had other concerns

    ReplyDelete
  10. and the polling folks might have an agenda?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susquehanna_Polling_%26_Research

    "The firm specializes in polling services for Republican candidates, trade groups, businesses and lobbying firms in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland."

    ReplyDelete
  11. ATTENTION AMERICA!
    Corona virus is the FLU! It is the 1917 Spanish Flu. It is the 1957 Hong Kong Flu (H2N2), the 1968 Hong Kong Flu (H2N3), Swine Flu (1967), and maybe many others that the Left (talking 'bout you O'hare) try to pass of as the end of America unless we elect Demos to rule us.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I forgot to post my last comment as Anonomyus, but I'm sure you know me by now. I also fake I work for a living.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe because Wolf has friends in high places in the nursing home biz.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 12:23 I would definitely trade the handling of COVID in all three of those states over PA. All three closed later and opened sooner by an average 5 weeks causing less damage to their economies. Texas and Florida have 37.6 Million MORE PEOPLE than PA and COMBINED have 297 FEWER DEATHS! Arizona has 5.6 Million fewer people, 4902 FEWER DEATHS and a death rate per 100K of 25. PA has a death rate of 52 per 100K. "Wolf hasn't been perfect" is arguably the greatest understatement ever made.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "You cite one instance in which this poll was wrong to assert it is "consistently" wrong. That is illogical."

    https://eriedems.com/node/2051

    Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman Jim Burn urged the outlets to reconsider using Susquehanna Polling and Research for future elections. Susquehanna's polling produced wildly incorrect results that caused erroneous coverage and assumption and did a disservice to the outlets' audiences.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "As to the nursing home deaths your hindsight is always perfect.
    However when it was occurring you had other concerns"


    Incorrect. What was going ion at nursing homes had me concerned from the onset, and I do believe I am the first person covering the pandemic to have picked up on it, thanks in large part to Steve Thode. In the meantime, you were trolling for Wolf and have repeatedly tried to hijack this blog, cupcake.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 6.58
    BTW the nursing home problem was first made an issue with Cuomo in NY.
    It did not get much traction when the overwhelming of hospitals was still an unknown.
    It became a thing after the hospital crisis eased and full hindsight came into play.
    not long after that it became a attack point in PA based on the "Wolf is evil" plan that tossed everything at him looking for something to stick for political purposes.
    i could care less about Wolf but i abhor a political attack using the bodies of the dead.
    Unless you believe there was no politics by republicans in this pandemic.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Don't always agree with this blog. But it was on the nursing home killing factories from the jump. It should have been more critical of county leaders who hid and tacitly supported their guy in Harrisburg who was murdering their elderly constituents right before their eyes. Concentration camps always seem to have neighbors who don't say a word. Lamont and council, I'm looking at you. You were reading the same info the rest of us were. And you did nothing but let the deaths continue. The stellar performance of the prison and the elections office pales in comparison to a horrific story that deserves a lot more attention. And Wolf marched .....

    ReplyDelete
  19. It seems to me Wolf followed Cuomo off the cliff. These are supposed to be smart people, yet they put infected people back in nursing homes? Not one person in the Governors executive circle said whoa, hold on, that's probably not a good idea. Wolf has a degree from MIT, and Dr. Rachel a degree from Harvard, I mean c'mon. I can't believe he's as high as 49% as most everyone I talk to bangs on him pretty good LOL. I also find it suspicious that once the nursing home debacle became public all the polling stopped, prior to that you heard how great his numbers were.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 11.52
    "yet they put infected people back in nursing homes? "
    The idea made sense at the time as the projections were that hospitals would be overwhelmed
    with a lack of beds and ventilators.
    Therefore sending stable residents back to their nursing homes would free up space in those same hospitals.
    This would allow the greatest number of people to be treated.
    Curiously no one made noise about this until after the peak and knew the full range of the pandemic.
    Hindsight is always 20/20.
    Currently Arizona may run out of hospital beds,so would moving stable residents back to their nursing home be an worthwhile idea.?
    with the alternative of turning people away at the hospital.
    It is not ideal but you have to work with what you have.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The idea made sense at the time as the projections were that hospitals would be overwhelmed
    with a lack of beds and ventilators.
    Therefore sending stable residents back to their nursing homes would free up space in those same hospitals.
    This would allow the greatest number of people to be treated.
    Curiously no one made noise about this until after the peak and knew the full range of the pandemic."


    This is revisionist history. When Levine ordered nursing homes to accept Covid-positive residents, the The American Health Care Association objected loudly. It warned her order put “frail and older adults who reside in nursing homes at risk” and would “result in more people going to the hospital and more deaths.” I know I was at least one of the first to write about it. Hospitals were never overwhelmed either. I am not accusing Levine or Wolf of having blood on their hands, but they were warned this would happen, and it did. I suspect Levine knew since she took her mom out of some senior care center.

    ReplyDelete

You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.