There wasn't a military coup, Morales ordered the military to massacre protesters against him, and resigned when they refused (taking the refusal to follow orders as an implicit threat).

The entire narrative is bullshit. There were two members of Morales's party in the line of presidential succession after him, and they both resigned in "solidarity" because they didn't want the party's fingerprints on the interim government. You can't very well claim your government was overthrown in a coup if your party still holds the presidency. That resulted in a conservative official lower in the presidential succession taking the reins, perfect for the "coup" narrative.

Finally the election itself, which had more observers and by all accounts was run cleaner than the last one. What kind of "coup" government organizes a free and fair election less than a year after the "coup", in which it doesn't even compete? The main candidates were a socialist from Morales's party and a social democrat, with a handful of far-right minor candidates cannibalizing the conservative vote between them. The interim president pulled out of the election, and her party didn't even run a candidate.

Leftists will pounce on this as a narrative of them somehow overcoming overwhelming odds to defeat a "coup", but the real story here is that Morales shouldn't have run for reelection (especially given term limits) and he should've let someone else from his party run instead.