When a candidate for a particular office promises that he or she can undo the mistakes or failings of a predecessor, one can count on the fact that those promises are nothing but “bubbles” that disappear in the air of politics after the candidate is elected.  There is no “quick fix” in politics; only the shedding of the frills that precede the campaigns, revealing the naked core of facts that need to be understood in the light of the truth behind those promises and not the “white lies” intended to magnetize voters whose credulity could very well be the result of the whims of desperation.

There is no basis for any expected fulfillment that is “miles and miles” away from a promise. Most voters exercise their right either by choice or from the standpoint of a candidate’s experience.  To cite an example:  As governor of California, Davis had departed from his position at a time when it seemed his performance had lacked  aggressiveness and vigor, causing a somewhat negative reaction on the part of those that had elected him. This is not to say that Davis had not endeavored his utmost in the performance of his duties, but that he had inherited the leftovers of his predecessor.  His legacy, inherited by Schwarzenegger  wasn’t quite the kind that was desirable.  In spite of the assurances of the latter, there is presently a huge deficit that nobody in his right sense can rectify within the time allotted.  So much for a promise!

The element of unpredictability is always present in any situation, more so in politics. To cite yet another example are the promises of Obama, presently and prior to his election:  The mess left by his predecessor has not as yet been swept off the path on which Obama finds himself, proving that it is in the nature of politics that promises may be made but can be far from fulfillment.