Single-payer is obviously great but 1) the requisite tax increases are scary/cause cold feet due to sticker shock for voters and 2) industry comes down powerfully to bear on/threaten democratic govs/legislatures.
And it might be better in America to do a transition with the public option first anyway. That's why I'm pretty excited if cautiously optimistic about HRC's recent support for the public option. I think that's exactly how to start and I would have much rather have had that than the mandate in '10.
I can see a lot of people getting in a fit if this measure is defeated. I don't think many are looking at this from a reasonable standpoint. They see it as a major priority getting defeated, whereas in reality it's probably best that single-payer isn't done state-by-state where huge costs threaten state finances and party strength in the state. Universal healthcare like this is really better if done nationwide - Everyone pooling their resources helps reduce the financial burden. I'm not sure any single state is truly capable of financing such a project all on its own without issues.
If this passes and fails horribly, it hurts the movement to transition to single-payer and may hurt Democratic prospects in Colorado for a few election cycles or so. That only sets us even further back in advancing progressive goals.
Edit: completely forgot I already posted something similar. oh well