In Close Races, Even Democrats Who Support Obamacare Won't Name It

Obamacare supporters became very excited over the last week or so following the release of a new ad from Sen. Mark Pryor, an Arkansas Democrat facing a difficult reelection bid this November. The spot touted his support for, as he says in the ad, "a law that helps prevent insurance policies from canceling your policy when you get sick, or deny coverage for preexisting conditions."
That law, of course, is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, though Pryor doesn't refer to it by either name in the ad.
Liberal pundits have dismissed the omission as trivial—after all, this is a Democrat in a tight race and a conservative state touting his vote for the president's health law. Given how timid Democrats have been about expressing support for Obamacare, that's a pretty big deal, right? Perhaps Democratic politicians are finally coming around to more open and aggressive support for the law, just as liberal commentators have been urging for months.
I doubt it. Given the history of failed Obamacare messaging efforts, this doesn't seem like that big a deal, and I think the omission of any name for the law is actually quite telling.
Pryor's ad, and the buzz around it, are basically just extension of the argument that health law supporters have made for years: Sure, the law is unpopular, but many of the specific provisions—especially provisions requiring insurers to cover individuals with preexisting conditions—poll quite well.
It's true that those specific provisions poll well. It's been true for years. But the administration and its allies have attempted to capitalize on this since before the law even passed, and it's never translated into popular support. Yes, there are a number of provisions in the law that are and have long been popular. But the public doesn't like the law as a whole, and it's been quite clear and consistent on this matter, despite efforts to build support by pointing to the provisions that more people like.
Pryor's ad is just an updated version of this familiar approach to Obamacare messaging. It names some popular provisions, but not the law as a whole.
So this isn't some big shift. It's the same old strategy of playing up the popular provisions while playing down or ignoring the law, and its impact, in its entirety.
If anything, Democrats in close races are still generally trying to avoid talking about the law. As The Washington Post notes, "there's little evidence that the hotly debated law is on its way to becoming a central Democratic talking point heading into the fall campaign."
"Most candidates do not want to be in a situation of running their race on Obamacare," one unnamed Democratic strategist told the Post, noting the health law's low polls. And when Democrats do talk about it, they often make sure to voice support for fixing it.
A few states away from Arkansas, in the panhandle of Florida, for example, Democrat Gwen Graham is challenging conservative incumbent Republican Steven Southerland for his House seat. Thanks to name recognition (her father was governor of Florida), Graham is one of the few Democrats making real headway against a conservative opponent in what increasingly looks like a very strong year for Republicans. She's not exactly running hard on the health law. This week, she launched an ad this week declaring that "Obamacare has got to be changed so it works for North Florida."
Over the past few months, we've seen a similar dynamic in a number of close races. In North Carolina, Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, who has voiced support for Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, actually ran an anti-Obamacare ad against her GOP challenger last May. Her support for Obamacare continues to be an issue in the race. Democrat Alison Grimes, who is challenging Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, has treaded lightly in her support for the health law, talking about its effects in Kentucky without actually naming it.
Part of the story is the declining salience of Obamacare as a campaign issue. As The New York Times reported this week, there were 530 news releases from legislators mentioning Obamacare last summer. Over the last three months of this year, however, there were just 138. That's to be expected, given its prominence in the news last year. Now that the initial furor has died down, legislators on both sides of the aisle are talking about it less. But that's not a great sign for the law. It just shows that the fight over the issue has ebbed, and opinions about Obamacare are basically settled. Which is why even Democrats who support it won't name it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe the ads just need more bros doing kegstands.
Or Oregon hippy chicks playing guitars?
Or bespectacled smug douchebags in pajamas?
+1 for all 3
Are we ready for some college football?
CAN'T WAIT!
/BS 1/16/11
I got in on Texas at 16:1 to make the playoff and 24:1 to win it.
16:1? That's like, betting they'll still be in the Top 25 at the end of the season. 24:1 is just throwing away your money. I like Coach Strong, but it'll take him more than one year to beat the soft out of the cupcakes on that team last year.
OT: Dogs Eating Dead Bodies Of Ebola Victims On Liberian Streets
*cancels mail-order Liberian puppy*
+ a large, whole number
Typical libertarian, with your integer privilege and fractionalist prejudice.
The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act or "Voldemort" for short...
I will say its name! I will say its name!
Hastur!
Wait...whoops.
YOU FILTHY HALF BLOOD!
Listen; we can't judge these programs by their actual verifiable effects in the real world. They were intended to help people, and that's all you need to know.
I imagine a law that guarantees a daily steak diner for every American would poll quite well if you left out the fact that giving up your car, cellphone, and retirement savings was part of the deal.
...and you never get the steak.
In other news, a suicidal man on the top of a building was greeted with enthusiastic cries of "Jump! Jump!" from gathered onlookers.
Ooo, reverse psychology. I like it.
I'll just leave this here.
We were able to identify the politician using the Faceback app.
The components of the ACA poll into the 80s, of course. But ask about "Obamacare" and it sinks like a rock.
Maybe that has something to do with it.
Say my name, say my name
When no one is around you,
Say baby I love you
If you ain't runnin' game
Say my name, say my name
You actin' kinda shady,
Ain't callin' me baby
Why the sudden change?
"of course" meaning, in this case, in PB's head.
He's been acting kind of shady and not calling me baby lately.
-Obamacare
A few of The components of the ACA poll into the 80s, of course.
The majority of the components poll into the 0s. Hence the average when we poll about the thing as a whole.
Say my name, say my name
When no one is around you,
Say baby I love you
If you ain't runnin' game
Say my name, say my name
You actin' kinda shady,
Ain't callin' me baby
Why the sudden change?
Kiera Knightley has tiny titties. But we already knew that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....shoot.html
The pixilator missed her nipples. Maybe because they're so small.
No matter. I still would.
nsfw
Who wouldn't? Besides John, of course.
I would but she is definitely on the far side of skinny.
There's healthy skinny and unhealthy skinny. She's closer to the unhealthy end.
If I were his opponent, I'd run an ad to tweak him: "Mark Pryor says he voted for 'a law that helps prevent insurance policies from canceling your policy when you get sick, or deny coverage for preexisting conditions.' We'd like him to tell us which law that was and why it didn't pass."
BTW, campaign managers, call me. I've got a million of these. I'll sell them to you cheap.
And will you be here all week?
Nope, I'm off to DFW for some football at COB.
South Carolina vs Texas A&M tonight. Good matchup.
I went to FSU and UT. I'm rooting for a meteor strike on the field that takes out the Old Ball Coach and all of the TAMU team.
yeah I hate both those programs. Although I will most certainly watch.
Trying for some nice, turd?
"The law that dare not speak its name."
"The law that dare not speak its name" meets the "troll that won't shut up about it".
The law that promises a lot unless Obo voids it or the insurance companies find a way around it:
"Have insurers found new ways to avoid the sick under Obamacare?
http://www.pottsmerc.com/healt.....-obamacare
Or maybe "The we-still-don't-know-what's-in-it Law"
Well, she said "we have to pass the law to find out what's in it". She never said how long it would take! Apparently we're still waiting.
Obozokare is postmodern law. It's non-objective, proudly self-contradictory, and it's stated intentions are immune from the "cold, dead hand" of reason.
The article opens by pointing to a case in which a covered customer can't afford her plan's co-pay. It then goes on, without so much as blinking, to champion many of the reasons she can't afford her co-pay.
The article is a case-study on how lefties hope to hide from reality, 'cause TOP MEN will outlaw it.