>>>No, it's the argument from intimidation. And your last sentence there actually backs that up :)
>
>Nope. Last sentence is ad hominem- unashamedly so. Also known as the "he would say that" observation. ;-)
>

There is overlap between argument from intimidation and ad hominem. Both involve focus on feelings. prejudices as a device to divert/evade.

Examples, attempting to impeach an author/journalist by referencing a published biography on an unpopular public character.

The subtle distinction:

Ad Hominem: A person states that Candidate XYZ's argument is false, on the basis that XYZ is a bad/horrible/immoral person, or that some aspect of XYZ invalidates XYZ's argument ("doctors who survey against ACA cannot possibly be objective")

Argument from Intimidation: Only a person who watches Fox News or quotes a person who has been against ACA or holds a particular idea would believe crap like that.