Mulling my primary vote

[Ted King]

I like Bernie Sanders a lot. I like his earnestness, honestness, kindness and insightfulness. I think he has a vision of the US that is egalitarian and pluralistic; where free exercise of economic activity (capitalism) is balanced by government regulation that assures that corporate interests do not overwhelm individual interests and assures each citizen a ground level of community support in food, shelter, health care and education.

I definitely am for universal health care. Unfortunately, that is an area where pragmatic considerations (the way we actually behave collectively) slams into my idealism. I like that Sanders is putting flesh on the bones of the idea that we can actually have medical care on a par with the Germans and Japanese that is a universal system paid for by taxes paid to the government. It's a discussion we should have and take seriously. But there are a whole lot of people that need to be persuaded, so it will probably take some considerable effort and time to get the political alliances aligned to pass a law that pays for universal health care through taxes to the government.

I think what H. Clinton wants to do is get to what is functionally universal health care by means of expanding the ACA. Of course, that still leaves a large chunk of money for health care flowing through private health care insurers.

I suspect that Sanders wouldn't be against expanding the ACA to get closer to universal health coverage if he couldn't get his preferred legislation passed but the political conditions made such an expanded ACA option plausible. So, to me, the difference between Sanders and Clinton on health care isn't that big of a deciding factor when it comes to deciding who to vote for in the primary.

I do wonder about Sanders and foreign policy. I'm uncomfortable with Clinton's pragmatic hawkishness in balancing diplomacy and military force but I'm also uncertain about what Sanders vision is with respect to foreign policy. I do think that Sanders may be just the right person to influence Israeli Jews that are wavering in their support of the goal of coming to a two-state political solution with the Palestinians. That's an intriguing possibility. The whole Middle East is a mess, though, and it's going to take a sure hand to not have the US make things a lot worse. I would really like to hear Sanders' understanding of the dynamics of the Middle East and his vision of what the US should and shouldn't do given those dynamics. I think Clinton could get drawn into military action too easily, but I also think it's possible that she may have the right savvy to get the power interests to see the advantages of avoiding conflict.

At a gut level, it comes down to a "battle" between my insecurities leading me to favor pragmatism - Clinton - and my hopes which lead me to favor idealism - Sanders. For all the important talk about the logic of this policy or that, I think for me that, honestly, who I vote for will probably depend on who makes the more resonate emotional appeal - the pragmatist or the idealist. At an emotional level what I'm looking for a fairly concrete but hopeful vision of America and its relationship to the world.

[cbelt3]

Ted-
Good thoughts. Ultimately the thing you want is 'elect-ability'. I think Hillary or Bernie as President will be a good offset to a 'radicalized' controlled Congress. I like to think the quiet majority of Americans recognize this somehow.

I also think any of the current Republican front runners being elected to the Presidency, coupled with a neo-jihadi-inspired Congress, would be incredibly damaging to the Union.

[vision63]

I urge you to flip a coin. These days it's less about me worrying about you mulling the specifics of candidate policy than seeing to it that you actually get out and vote. I can strongly support either candidate. I'm supporting Hillary because of her pragmatism. I too am a Democratic Socialist like Bernie and I love him but I need stuff to get done.

[deckeda]

If I was able to vote in such a primary I'd give Sanders the bid because I want a sense of honesty and he provides it better. I know he doesn't have The Answer to the Mid East, but it's not needed! He's the only candidate willing to admit A) it's a mess and B) a U.S. President can't really change A.

Remember when Kerry ran and said he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve? How refreshing, a real person. Labeled anti-God, anti-Bible ... people foolishly demand a certain answer or position and most candidates rush to fill it, ignoring their realities.

[beagledave]

Without giving away too much of your personal info if you don't want to, do you live in a state that has primaries/caucuses that happen earlier in the cycle?

That might have an influence on your thinking as well.

[Pam]

It's hard for one candidate to be strong on both foreign policy and issues at home. That is where a VP and Secretary of State come into play. As long as the candidate is an even keeled kind of person and willing/able to listen his/her carefully chosen advisors all should be fine.

[Ted King]

beagledave wrote:
Without giving away too much of your personal info if you don't want to, do you live in a state that has primaries/caucuses that happen earlier in the cycle?

That might have an influence on your thinking as well.

I live in a state that votes later in the process, so the candidate could already effectively have been chosen by the time I vote. But I like to think that my vote matters anyway so I try to vote for who I actually think will be the candidate most likely to be able to help things happen that I would like to see happen.

[Ted King]

Pam wrote:
It's hard for one candidate to be strong on both foreign policy and issues at home. That is where a VP and Secretary of State come into play. As long as the candidate is an even keeled kind of person and willing/able to listen his/her carefully chosen advisors all should be fine.

That's true, I can imagine that having people like Kerry, Obama and Bill Clinton "on board" - in addition to a foreign policy wonk VP and Sec. of State - could be pretty useful for that. But ultimately the president should have a solid strategic vision of their own and the president will inevitably have to make some hard calls where making the "right" call depends a lot on the ability of the president to understand and appreciate nuances of the interests involved.

[rgG]

I could vote for either Clinton or Sanders, but I worry that Sanders might not pull over some of the middle of the road Republicans that might not want to vote for whatever clown they seem destined to nominate.

I think if we had a Sanders vs. Trump ballot, it might all depend on who could get out their die hard minions on election day, and unfortunately, I think Trump's sheeple might be more likely to show up.

I fear that some independents, and not totally bat$hit crazy republicans, who might vote for Clinton, if Trump or Cruz is the nominee, might not vote for Sanders and would just stay home wringing their hands.

[pdq]

I generally agree - vote your conscience. But if your choice doesn't end up as the nominee, please don't sulk and stay home in the general.