Is campaign rhetoric purposefully used to avoid addressing the real political issues the American people want answers to?

In my humble opinion, they essentially have little choice barring those who have served in someone President's cabinet. For example, the GOP candidates don't have a feel for how the real system works, what's really achievable, and how other countries may respond to our actions. Pres. Obama promised troop withdrawals by a given date as a candidate - once in office, he learned what is real and doable.

Candidates make promises that in reality they may not be able to keep, but make them because the general public hear what they want to hear. Will Trump be able to build the wall on the border - I doubt it. Will he send back 3 million illegal immigrants - I doubt it. Will Sanders turn the country into a socialist state - I doubt it.

In the end, it's up to the public (each of us) to determine what (and who) is real, what is in the best interest of America as a country (and not just your personal life), and get educated on all that matters. Otherwise, you may get what you ask (vote) for.

Just my humble opinion.

We can't handle the truth.

Sgt Joe LaBranche - Sergeant; I don't think that it as much "avoiding answering the real issues" as it is "avoiding proving that you don't know what to do about the real issues".

If you can ever find a politician who has not only goals but a concrete plan to achieve those goals, then you are going to be very surprised.

Semantically most "campaign promises" translate into the equivalent of "We are going to improve American education by improving American education." (with absolutely no definitions being given for "we", "improve", "American", or "education").