Here's an ad attacking Thom Tillis for his alleged stance on health insurance reform.

It's paid for by Patriot Majority USA, a DC-based advocacy group that doesn't want to tell you much about itself but seems closely tied to Democratic leadership and union funding. Complaining about opaque, out-of-state organizations pumping money into this campaign is going to be like complaining about the weather, which is to say common, legit, and useless.

The ad is deemed by people who follow such as things as, essentially, true enough (credit WRAL with a reasonable caveat for the months ahead: "It's hard to imagine any 30-second attack ad on health care getting a clean bill of health.") 

As for effectiveness, it does an OK job of reminding North Carolinians that Kay Hagan's presumptive opponent (and, really, any GOP nominee) will either be against the stuff that people unabashedly like about the ACA, or have some not-very-convincing plan to repeal it and fund the popular parts only. This commercial is not as polished as the rival AFP spots, and I'd guess it's not supposed to be. While the anti-Hagan ads carry a dual message -- "Obamacare failed, and, we really do care about reg folks like you" -- this one has a single, blunt point to make.

I'd like to see some Obamacare messages voiced in a more positive way. Show me a guy from Rocky Mount who has coverage despite a pre-existing condition, and a woman from Pineville who was able to leave her job and start a company of her own. Let's hear from some of the surprisingly-large number of North Carolinians who have signed up for coverage in our exchange-free state. Less happy stories work, too -- say, from individuals and institutions hurt by the failure to expand Medicaid -- but those still would be grounded in the intended benefits of the ACA. 

Attack ads seem to be effective, so I don't expect them to go away. But I prefer a positive message, and I think it's important for Hagan to stake a claim to the good things she helped bring about.

Comments

[pfknc]

My basic problem with respect to the "polished ad" is I am sick and tired of hearing what is not working or won't work but no alternative to offer in place of a broken system. I have participated in group health insurance since 1981. The cost increases, employer premium increases, employee benefit reductions, plan changes have been a consistent trend. 30 + years of in depth knowledge and experience tells me what we have is broken - do something. We can't go back to the good old system because it was not working for a lot of people. It's too bad that change is so difficult but it appears it is moving our health care cost trends in a better direction and bringing more into a position to participate.

[Ed Cone]

Even the polished ad with the sad lady tacitly acknowledges that the status quo ante was not sustainable -- "It just doesn't work" implies that there's a problem to fixed. Same with this one: If Obamacare is not the answer, there must be a question. And of course Burr/Coburn/Hatch is explicit in this acknowledgement.

ACA may not be the full or fully-correct answer, but at least it's forced us to focus on the complexities and inadequacies of our healthcare system. Repeal alone is a dead issue, and that alone is progress.

[Jim Buie]

Repeal alone of the ACA is certainly not a dead issue with the Tea Party, or perhaps with a majority of Republicans. Any Republican congressional or Senate candidate who says he's against repeal of the ACA and favors a compromise of the sort Burr is proposing, I surmise, is in danger of losing the party nomination. Therein lies the vulnerability of Republican candidates this year. If they run on repealing the ACA and no-immigration-reform-ever, they will likely lose moderates in their own party and independents. If they run on mending, not ending, the ACA, and support an immigration compromise, they could lose the enthusiasm of their party's base, which loathes the ACA and proposed immigration reform.