Reader Poll: Majority of Respondents Disapprove of Kane

KaneWe’ve got some bad news for Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

Just over 60% of our readers believe she isn’t doing a good job.

1,281 respondents said they disapprove of Kane’s job performance.

Meanwhile, 791 readers approve of the job the Attorney General has done.

Plenty of theoretical ink has been spilled chronicling her early troubles, but it is always possible Kane turns things around. Of course, her standing could get worse. Either way, it will be a highly-watched story in 2015.

Do you approve or disapprove of Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s overall job performance?

  • Disapprove (62%)
  • Approve (38%)

Total Voters: 2,072

Loading ... Loading ...

December 2nd, 2014 | Posted in Features, Front Page Stories, Poll, Top Stories | 10 Comments

10 thoughts on “Reader Poll: Majority of Respondents Disapprove of Kane”

  1. Unsanctioned R says:

    She’s made a lot of terrible missteps that have been difficult for objective observers (and the Inquirer) to overlook.

    Blaming Kane’s implosion on W is not only strange but you must have been cryogenically frozen the past 5 years (like the “green shoots”).

  2. Big Moola says:

    At one point didn’t Corbett out poll Wolf on here ? So much for reader polls. Sounds more like people that would like to blame Kane for the George W. economic recession that the Country was in from 2002 – 2010. Maybe Kane is responsible for the “Curse of the Bambino” too !!!

    This sounds more like Republican loyalist who are upset or out of work do to the fact that they lost the Attorney General’s Office for the first time in 30 years. Now 4 years later they loose the Governorship changing a cycle of 8 year Governor’s since the inception of 2 term Governor’s.

    Maybe they should spend time trying to figure out ways to gerrymander the State wide elected offices (like they have with the House and Senate district’s) instead of beating up Kane.
    The facts are that Kane didn’t handle the Sandusky Case, Kane didn’t spend her time viewing Jokes and Porn on the State Computers.
    Sweet Grapes are used to make fine Wines !! Sour Grapes are used to make Losers Wine !!

  3. Bill ONeill says:

    Parallels between AG Kane refusing to prosecute and President Obama refusing to acknowledge Michael Brown’s attacks on Officer Wilson. Truth in the crosshairs. Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.

  4. Bill ONeill says:

    There are major parallels between the Israel and the Ferguson Police. Both are moral meaning right and correct but both are condemned by the Obama Administration and the MSM. Parallel: Jewish Settlements and Officer Wilson. Both Moral/ both condemned. Terrorists attack Israel and Israel is condemned by the U.N. Criminals burn down Ferguson and the police are condemned by the Obama Admin; Holder; and Sharpton. Kristelnacht all over again. Hands Up Don’t Shoot vs. Two More Years. See Michael Brown would still be alive at

  5. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD:

    You discount the polls [by surmising “ballot”-stuffing, by attacking methodology] instead of recognizing (painfully) that editorialists (statewide) have increasingly recognized how profoundly AG-Kane has mishandled her responsibilities [both politically and operationally].

    Note, just for example, that a lib-publication has lambasted her:

    “Calamity Kane: Is the state attorney general in over her head?”

    Do you still feel she could defeat Toomey?

  6. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ PoliticsPA Readers [& Guzzardi]:

    DD has attempted, in vain, to evade the conclusion that, regrettably, he is an anti-Semite; this also helps to explain why he is lock-step [goose-step?] with BHO.

    Know also that he tried to deflect The Truth by invoking Godwin’s Law, forgetting that Nazi-related metaphors are indeed indicated when [1]–the Arabs/Iranians are mirroring what Hitler/Nazis did in the ’30’s, and [2]–there is overwhelming evidence that the Nazis met with the Muslim leaders [e.g., The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem].

    Therefore, none of his postings contain a shred of credibility.

  7. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD: [PART II]

    It’s great to note that you have emerged from hibernation; I had assumed you had exhausted methods to evade the conclusions drawn previously on two websites [using your own words], to wit:

    –You again introduce a qualifier when the unpleasant truth – staring you in the face – states that, currently and since ’48, Israel has been a self-proclaimed “Jewish State”; when you created this criterion for American opposition [which you had defined as seeking “overthrow” inter-alia], you had assumed it was a “hypothetical” [because of your vague awareness of the pending legislation].

    –I provided information regarding the [security-based] rationale for this initiative, for none of the other policies of Israel would be altered in the process; thus, you can’t reasonably claim that passage of this one Basic Law would suddenly transform Israel into a fascist entity.

    –THEREFORE, again, notwithstanding your fevered protestations to the contrary, you have reinforced your opposition to Israel since its inception, explaining why you consider actions by Hamas to be “reasonable” under the circumstances.

    [11/30/2014 @ 3:08 p.m.]

    You can run, but you cannot hide.

  8. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    @ DD: [PART I]

    It’s great to note that you have emerged from hibernation; I had assumed you had exhausted methods to evade the conclusions drawn previously on two websites [using your own words], to wit:

    …You advocate the overthrow of the Israeli government; indeed, you have now been shown to have the desire to have applied this heinous policy throughout Israel’s entire lifetime.

    [You have attempted to claim Israel is not a “Jewish State” because the pending bill (regarding Basic Law) hasn’t been passed; in the process, you have consciously/repeatedly ignored Israel’s enabling document from 5/15/1948.]

    [Also, you have retroactively claimed, “I am advocating for the overthrow of the Israeli government by the left-centrist Jewish political parties. You like to leave out who I want to do the overthrowing. (I wish the US would/could help by denouncing Netanyahu or putting him on trial for war crimes.)”]

    …You have endorsed the behavior of Hamas [which the USA has designated as a terrorist organization] that is, itself, promoting policies that are consonant with those of the barbaric Islamic State.

    [You havevalidated false claims by Hamas, to wit: “You’ve jumped from my statement that the Palestinians have valid grievances.”]

    [The last time I typed this, you only quibbled with rationale, to wit: “You keep saying that I endorse Hamas’s behavior. I haven’t. Their behavior has been ineffective at ending the cruel occupation of Palestinian territories. Israel’s behavior has been worse, and I don’t endorse it either.”

    [11/28/2014 @ 8:09 p.m.]

    You can run, but you cannot hide.

  9. bobguzzardi says:

    I predict KKane will be indicted for leaking Grand Jury testimony.

  10. David Diano says:

    All this poll means is that the government workers who had to stop viewing porn on their computers had more free time to come to PoliticsPA and “disapprove” of Kane.

    I wonder if Fina and Williams each called 500 people asking them to vote against Kane in the poll?

    Based on past PoliticsPA polls, we’ve seen that the readers are not representative of the voters.

    Also, some big high-profile case may come around that could help or hurt. There’s a lot of time between now and 2016.

Comments are closed.