No, the reason why we don't have a public option/universal health care/whatever/etc is not that Dems lost an election in Kentucky.
It is that the American electoral system and particularly the U.S. Senate is unrepresentative and broken institutionally, so that the public option/whatever couldn't be passed even when there were Senators elected representing an overwhelming share of the population supporting it.
You are unlikely to fix that or many other problems until you fix that underlying failure of the system of government - see this thread - https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=354038.0
Well that's some wonderful insight but not particularly helpful in the short term. Saying we can't get better health care until we completely change our electoral system feels like, with all due respect, a lazy cop-out.
And btw, LMAO at the idea of Dems winning in KY, you are delusional beyond parody.
They lost by 6%. Also Jim Bunning won by 1% in 2004 and 0.5% in 1998, and a Dem held the seat prior to that. It's not that crazy.
Jim Bunning did so poorly in 2004 because (A) he was a dull, boring candidate, and (B) Dan Mongiardo was a pro-life Democrat who had support from Kentucky's significant voters who were Democratic (at the local level) churchgoers.
Good job, Dems, on running such people out of the party for good. It'll be tough for Democrats to equal Mongiardo's numbers, let alone win, in a state that's culturally conservative, even though it still has a significant number of local Democrats and union members.
That's only because the Dems let the GOP decide what Americans want instead of the Dems doing what they should and defending their stances and selling them as the better option.
