3 weeks ago, Hackett made a startling comment for such a high visibility Senate candidate--he went directly against the washington consensus and Democratic (and GOP) party doctrine when he advocated deporting illegal aliens.

This stance of his against illegal immigration is one aligned with blue collar white Americans--which is the largest single bloc of voters. But it goes against the tenets of teh democratic party.

But slowing immigration would help the wages of blue collar Americans--less growth of the labor supply, and more growth of wages. Supply and demand.

But the big money donors to the GOP and Democrats LOVE high immigration. It helps fatten their wallets. But it thins the wallets of the blue collar workers.

At least the GOP politicians PRETEND to be against illegal immigration for the most part.

But the democratic stance is that illegal immigration is untouchable and that if you criticize immigration, you are a racist. And that stance is part of what has helped push white blue collar americans away from the Democrats and toward the GOP.

But as long as the white working class is roughly divided into blue state vs red state, and office workers vs blue collar, the big money have a stalement and can continue to push America to the right.

But Hackett was a mold breaker. His mix of leftist economics and blue collar populism could have marked a shift of white blue collar workers and rural white americans in general AWAY from the GOP and towards the Dems, and more importantly, away from neoliberal economics and towards keynesian economics, i.e., more towards a controlled european economy. higher wages, lower profits.

Oh my.

ANd the Big Money would hate that.

And so they forced the democratic party elite to get rid of Hackett.

But why has no one else picked up on this?

Maybe because liberal AND rightwing political "debate" is constrained to certain safe bounds.