There is no denying the appeal of Bernie Sanders. Promises of free public education for all, an increase in the minimum wage to $15, decreased prices of prescription drugs and hitting Wall Street where it hurts have done well to galvanize widespread support amongst millennials for the senator from Vermont. Polls suggest that 85 percent of Democratic voters below age 30 have already committed their vote to Sanders in the primary. This is a remarkable forecast, but is it really a thoughtful allocation?

Over the last several months, Hillary Clinton and Sanders have gone head-to-head in debates that have resulted in a win for Sanders in New Hampshire, a victory for Clinton in Nevada and a virtual tie in Iowa. Considering what we have seen so far, a win in the primary for either one of them is equally plausible. Put Sanders up against one of the top Republican candidates in a general election however, and I believe we would see a profound disparity of support in the Republican candidate’s favor.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. I know you have heard this a thousand times and defended your favorite candidate by vehemently responding: “actually, he’s a Democratic socialist; there’s a difference!” Whether he is a Democratic socialist, Republican socialist, pacifist socialist — the Republicans do not care. They will drive this concept down our throats until we are sick of the taste of it. There is simply no chance that a self-proclaimed socialist will perform well against Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the general election, nor would America ever elect one. Polls suggesting the contrary fail to recognize that the Republican candidates have yet to draw their entire focus toward criticizing Sanders and his quixotic propositions.

So what are we left with? My fellow Democrats cringe when I state my support for Clinton, but I always urge them to reconsider. I think we can rely much more heavily on Clinton’s ability to carry the country forward with proposals that are based on experience rather than a desire to summon youthful enthusiasm. In terms of foreign policy, such as eradicating the establishment of an Islamic State — an issue that I regard as being particularly crucial — Clinton’s approach involving the improvement of the Iraqi military, supporting Afghanistan’s democracy and security and restoring stability to Libya and Yemen offer clear-cut details that outclass Sanders’ idea of simply “building a coalition.” Sanders’ apparent lack of depth in this area is shocking.

In terms of economic policy, even liberal economists are beginning to express concern that Sanders’ numbers do not add up. Alan Krueger, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, who also served on the council of economic advisers for President Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, stated in an open letter to Sanders: “as much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic.” Sanders’ policies are simply too good to be true.

If you support Bernie Sanders or have not yet made up your mind, I encourage you to ask yourself the following: are you prepared to live the next four years under a Republican presidency? If so, casting a vote for the senator may be your best bet. If not, and that very possibility repulses you, then voting for Clinton would be a wiser decision to obviate Republican victory in a year where the Republican candidates are less sensible and less qualified than usual.

Brian Deinstadt is a sophomore double-majoring in political science and English.