Facing an Iowa-New Hampshire sweep, liberal Democrats sound the alarm on Sanders

Too many liberal political commentators have held their tongue on Bernie Sanders, who is the Democratic version of a Donald Trump renegade candidate, except that he doesn’t view Mexicans as rapists and desperate Muslim refugees as terrorists.

Instead, the media emphasis has kindly focused on the Vermont senator as a phenomenon, a 74-year-old democratic socialist, a true believer in the big-government ways of Western Europe, particularly Scandinavia.

But, with the Iowa caucuses upon us and disgruntled Democrats ready to hand Sanders a win in Iowa and in next week’s New Hampshire primary, many liberals, in a semi-state of shock, have belatedly stepped forward to denounce Sanders’ politics.

One wonders where they have been for so long. In the modern parlance of mainstream political thought -- such as it is in 2016 -- Sanders is as far out of the mainstream as is Ted Cruz. Yet, many liberal pundits waited until the final week before the Iowa caucuses to sound their alarm.

The curmudgeonly Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast wrote in recent days that Sanders’s chances of winning the general election are “virtually nil.”

Tomasky offered old-school evidence for Democrats who back Sanders over Hillary Clinton:

No grassroots support

“(Sanders) has (the endorsement of) one Democratic member of Congress, Keith Ellison of Minnesota (out of 232); and ... just 115 Democratic state legislators across the country.

“Actually, that’s not across 50 states; it’s across only 14 states. Of the 115, 94 are from New England: Maine 37, Vermont 29, New Hampshire 19, Connecticut five, Massachusetts four. The Vermont number of 29 is particularly interesting, because the Vermont General Assembly (which includes both houses) has 103 Democrats, meaning that Sanders doesn’t have even one-third of the Democrats in his own state.

“Maybe 115 sounds like a quasi-respectable figure to you. But there are 3,175 Democratic state legislators in America. So 115 is nothing. And again, the vast majority come from states right in his neighborhood.

Lack of defense policy experience

What's more, Sanders’ obvious lack of foreign policy expertise – and his perceived lack of interest in issues beyond our borders – have raised major concerns about a potential President Sanders.

Politico reported that Sanders claimed on a Sunday CNN broadcast that he speaks to "many, many, many people" who provide him with advice on foreign policy. That's untrue.

The sole person Sanders cited by name, former Ronald Reagan defense official Lawrence Korb, told Politico that he's spoken to Sanders only one time. 

What about other foreign policy strategists cited by the Sanders campaign? At least half of them told Politico they have only spoken to the senator once or twice in the past year.

Dodging foreign policy questions

Faced with a primary battle against Clinton, the former secretary of state, Sanders has routinely flipped questions about ISIS or Middle East mayhem into answers about the U.S. income inequality and the minimum wage.

Michael Crowley of Politico offered this: “Sanders' foreign policy views and credentials will likely grow (as an issue) if he wins early primary contests against Clinton and gains momentum towards his party's nomination.”

Beyond Sanders’ out-of-the-mainstream politics, the senator’s supporters focus on polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Donald Trump than Clinton does. 

But political analysis shows those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter-century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on the easy work of demonizing Sanders.

Politico also reported that a foreign policy expert who has spoken with Sanders in recent months described the Vermont socialist as "intelligent and informed but not deeply immersed in the subject matter" and still "trying to formulate his positions."

Big tax-and-spender
In addition, Third Way, a centrist research group, took a look at Sanders' unrealistic plan to expand Social Security and concluded that he was pandering to senior citizen voters. 

A new Third Way report argues that Sanders' plan -- due to vast income differences -- would invoke new tax policies that would help the wealthy more than the lower- and middle-class. 

The tax increases needed to pay for more Social Security benefits under Sanders' plan would exceed the cost of other Democratic priorities, such as education and infrastructure spending. And the tax increases would not be enough to stop Social Security from going insolvent in the long run.
“The new benefits in the Sanders' proposal are substantially tilted toward the wealthy,” said the report by Jim Kessler, a former staffer for Sen. Charles Schumer, and David Brown.