The following exerpt from this article at Poltico on Thursday once more describes a common theme I’ve seen pop up in primary coverage a lot, and in particular in the last week:

…Stephens gushed about a different candidate: Elizabeth Warren. The Army veteran cited her health care plan and said he “like(s) a lot of the things Warren is saying.” He also praised Bernie Sanders’ policies.

But then Stephens added that the country “would never vote for a woman and a liberal that’s been branded a socialist.” So he’s planning to vote for Biden.

That theme, of course, is the very common refrain from voters that they personally think the idea of a woman as President is wonderful, it’s just that the rest of the country isn’t, so they’re going to to strategically vote for another old white centrist guy. Ipsos/Daily Beast’s poll from June 2019 bears this out, and is often cited in conjunction with this idea; in that poll, when asked about a female president, 74% of Democrats say they were comfortable with a woman in the White House, but only 33% said they thought their neighbors would be. Another poll from October shows similar responses.

In the end, the data illustrates a common concern among Democrats: beating Trump is the primary goal above all else, and many seem to be worried that a woman wouldn’t do as well in the general as a man would, so we should gear our primary voting toward the safe choice. Once again, the spectre of electability rears it’s head.

I say that idea is bullshit.

It’s the primary season; we’re still two weeks away from anybody officially caucusing or voting for a candidate, and the race is, at least in the top tier, wide open. The primary isn’t the time to second-guess what everyone else thinks; throw your support behind the candidate you most favor: if you like Warren or Sanders’ policies the best, go ahead and vote for them in your primary. Even if they don’t become the candidate, your expression of support will, if nothing else, drive the narrative and help shape the party platform and the policies pursued by the eventual nominee, even if it ends up being a centrist like Joe Biden. The primary is not the time for sacrificing your deeply held principles on the altar of electibility; we’ve got the general election for that, and by supporting the candidate that inspires you, it’s more likely the eventual nominee, whoever that is, will hew closer to the positions your candidate espoused.

Look back four years, and compare the Democratic baseline position on universal health care or publically-funded college. Back in 2016, Sanders advocated strongly for those positions, and in the end, Clinton worked some of them into her platform when she was nominated. In 2020’s primary contest, even the most conservative candidates in the race support some form of public funding for health care (that’s what the “public option” or “Medicare for all who want it” is) and public funding for career training, college, and even student loan forgiveness, even if those candidates don’t push it to the extent or degree you prefer. The needle moved left, and that’s because people showed their support for those ideas on the primary ballot.

That old saw attributed to Bill Clinton back in 2003 goes “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.” There may be some truth in this truism, but I’d argue (as Peter Hamby did in May in Vanity Fair) that every time that Democrats have been successful in recent history (Carter, Clinton himself, Obama), it’s because the Democrats chose the inspiring candidate, not the safe one. Just ask John Kerry, Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton how their elections turned out.

There will be plenty of time for pragmatism in the general. The primary is the time to vote with our hearts; to eschew compromising one’s ideals. By giving up our ideals in the primary, we’re guaranteeing that we’ll be holding our nose in the general when we “vote blue, no matter who.”

I know I’d rather vote my principles and take a chance that in the general, I’ll not have to feign enthusiasm in the voting booth.