Swiss voters resoundingly rejected a proposal to move the country to a single-payer system on Sunday. Instead, the country will keep its private health insurance system, which looks a whole lot like Obamacare.

Two-thirds of Swiss voters opposed creating a state-run health plan in the national referendum. The issue was put to a vote after Swiss campaigners gathered more than 100,000 signatures, the threshold for getting a national vote; some initial polls in 2013 had shown strong support for a state-run system.

For a country with a relatively small population (8 million), Switzerland comes up a shocking amount in debates over American health care. That's probably because the Swiss health care system looks pretty similar to the one Obamacare sets up.

Since 1996, Switzerland has required all residents purchase coverage through an individual mandate. "If you move to Switzerland, you have three months to buy coverage and it's retroactive to your arrival," Aaron Carroll explains in his excellent video primer on the Swiss health care system.

Swiss residents buy coverage from private health insurance plans, who compete for their business. The average monthly premium for adults, in American dollars, was $329 in 2013. There are no pre-existing conditions in Switzerland; insurers are only allowed to vary premiums based on age, charging different rates for children under 18, young adults between 19 and 25, and adults over 25.

After Tuesday night, the undeniable truth is that the entire Sanders campaign was predicated on a gauzy myth. If there were ever hidden armies of would-be Democratic voters yearning for a visionary presidential nominee uncontaminated by the compromises of life, then these Bernie Brigades still remain well camouflaged.

Sure, as Sanders stressed in his Wednesday statement, some of his policies are popular with primary voters. In Michigan, exit polls showed that replacing private health insurance with a government program had the support of nearly 60 percent of the people who went to the polls on Tuesday. But since the February 29 South Carolina primary, most Democratic primary voters have been unwilling to buy the entire Sanders package: politically unattainable goals, such as canceling $1.6 trillion in college debt, combined with attacks on corporate interests and the “billionaire class.”

After Sanders’s two presidential runs, voters possess a pretty clear-eyed sense of who he is. He is a gadfly, a goad, and a left-wing Pied Piper. These can be valuable traits in politics since the moderate, accommodationist wing of the Democratic Party sometimes needs outside pressure to force it to focus on causes larger than the next election. But Sanders was never cut out to be a traditional president forging alliances, brokering compromises, and dealing with the messiness of governing in a bitterly divided democracy. That simply isn’t Bernie’s skill set. And his lifelong rigidity would have become an even larger governing problem if he ever succeeded Trump as president.

What Democratic voters have created by rallying around Biden is the American equivalent of the Popular Front, which, in the 1930s, was a broad, multiparty alliance against fascism in France and other democratic countries. The exit polls from Michigan echo a sentiment found in almost all primaries—voters, by a 58-to-37 percent margin, want a candidate who can defeat Trump more than someone who agrees with them on all issues.....

Sanders will undoubtedly fight on in the hopes that he can shape the Democratic platform. The problem with that strategy is that, even if Biden were to commit to supporting, say, Medicare for All, as a price for party harmony in Milwaukee, it would be a meaningless pledge. Currently, fewer than one-third of the Democrats in the Senate support eliminating private insurance. And if Chuck Schumer succeeds in getting the chamber back in Democratic hands, the new additions to their ranks are likely to be moderates like John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Steve Bullock of Montana, none of whom support Medicare for All.

For all the talk about Sen. Bernie Sanders’s diverse coalition and progressive outlook (and all the questions about the “likability” of female candidates), it should not escape notice that the biggest group of Democratic voters — women — overwhelmingly rejected the Vermont independent.

In Michigan, women made up 54 percent of the electorate; former vice president Joe Biden won 58 percent among these voters, compared to 35 percent for Sanders. In Missouri, women also accounted for 54 percent of the electorate; they chose Biden 64 to 32 percent. In Mississippi, 58 percent of the electorate was female; women chose Biden 83 to 12 percent.

Go back to Super Tuesday. Biden’s median support among women was 12 points higher than Sanders’s (37 to 25 percent) but only four points higher among men. In all Super Tuesday state exit polls, women made up more than 50 percent of the electorate — reaching roughly 60 percent in some cases (e.g. 58 percent in Minnesota, 61 percent in Alabama, 59 percent in Maine). That reflects the huge gender gap between the two parties that has only widened during the Trump era.....

Women’s aversion to Sanders may also be a rejection of the Bernie Bros phenomenon — the obnoxious harassment and even threats directed at women (including journalists and union leaders, as was the case in Nevada). Plenty of women did not think it was the least bit improbable that Sanders told Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) he did not think a woman could win. The only other candidate whose campaign ethos is so infused with testosterone is Trump.

The degree to which Sanders has turned off women is a fundamental problem for the left, which contrary to its self-conception is largely white and male. It is hard to present oneself as the vanguard of a diverse party when your coalition on race and gender (but not age) looks like a Republican coalition. Moreover, it is impossible to win as a Democrat without the support and enthusiasm of women.