If you blame Nader then you are saying Katherine Harris numbers were correct and aboveboard

[merrily]

46. Gee, and I try so hard to disguise my need to be educated on basics.

Apparently, you saw right through that.

The real promises are only the ones spelled out in writing, any other verbal statements should be questioned and stronger commitments pursued.

Sorry, but promises in writing have been broken, too. (I am assuming you'd concede that things spelled out on a candidate's campaign website qualify as having been in writing.) But, in what universe am I getting to question Presidential candidates and pursue stronger commitments from them? And if even written promises are broken with total impunity, because the base is willing to excuse and rationalize endlessly, what, really, is the point of pursuing stronger commitments?

Another factor is of course the other government branches and whether they will go along with what a candidate is promising.

We get campaign promises in campaign season, and then we get excuses like the above for why the promises don't get fulfilled.

If governing like a Democrat is so damn impossible unless:

1. Democrats hold well over 60% of the seats in Congress (to make up for Blue Dogs--who are not all that different from New Democrats anyway--and, of course, Lieberman, who got blamed even when he voted with Democrats),

2. At least 5 seats on the SCOTUS bench;

AND

3. a Democrat in the Oval Office all at one time,

then, we really need to stop making excuses and come up with ways to change that alleged reality. Alternatively, we shyould just disband the very expensive group in Washington, D.C. because the scenario ennumerated above is NEVER going to happen. Or, if it will happen, but only after many years and only after Democrats get more and more like Republicans, then what is really the point?

Another factor is unplanned events like the Great Recession, the collapse of the auto industry, foreign policy crisis etc. These take time and money away from working on the promises.

You mean, like the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl and the rise of Hitler that FDR had to deal with simultaneously? (Yeah, yeah, I know. He had a bigger Democratic majority, but that majority was far from united. And he had Republicans in control at times, too, plus a conservative SCOTUS that, on federal power under the commerce clause, anyway, would have made the Roberts Court seem hard left.

Not to mention, that there is always money for "defense" which now includes the military, mercenaries, nation builders of various kinds, the Coast Guard, Homeland Security, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Secret Service, the armed personnel in every single government department, etc.

Besides, government told us that we got back all the money we gave to the banksters and automakers. So, why is that even an excuse?

And here's a template for contingency planning: Shit happens. It always has and it always will. And politicians are responsible for how they deal with it or fail to deal with it.