It's a generally-accepted truth that campaign promises are things that the candidate will fight for, not necessarily win. The effort of that fight is certainly debated fiercely, but to say that it's "generally accepted" that all campaign promises are empty and made without cost is to say that, yet again, you refuse to pay attention to the process so you can feel self-righteous about it. It's a question you shouldn't be asking, though. I mean... Here's the thing, bub. We get that you want to be all WATB about this shit but the way you carry on? it's like you're insisting that the sour grapes are the only thing you want to eat.This isn't unique to this particular election cycle either, so don't just wrap this particular question in with the rest of my sour grapes.
Allow me to rephrase. It's a generally accepted truth that the majority of campaign promises will not be fulfilled. And I never said without cost, though maybe that was implied. Assuming that, why does it matter that Hillary was 'pulled left' on any given issue when it's likely that progress on that issue won't be made? And if she is being 'pulled left' in any substantial way, wouldn't that make her less likely to actually enact any kind of change at all, given the republican domination of the house and senate? From where I'm sitting there are sour grapes (Grumble Grumble, Hillary's gonna be president, wish it could'a been bernie) and there's grape-shaped hand grenades (ALL PRAISE GOD EMPEROR TRUMP), and that's it. And I'm looked at funny for going 'gee these grapes are sour, definitely don't eat them' when everybody else is unenthusiastically picking through the pile looking for maybe not-so-sour grapes. First and foremost, I wanted departure from the status quo for this election. That's not happening. I completely understand the pragmatic argument of 'HIllary isn't that bad, basically 4 more years of Obama, and Trump is way worse.' I'll take a shot in the foot over a shot in the head. But don't tell me to be happy about being shot in the foot, and extol the virtues of having shot feet.
No one is telling you to be happy. I am not happy. The chip on my shoulder is probably older than you. Nothing short of the second coming of Robespierre would make me happy. Politics doesn't make anyone whose net worth is under 10 digits happy. But in the 90s we couldn't even get shitty national healthcare, and in to 2010s we managed to at least get shitty national healthcare. We have a long way to go before we can tell the insurance industry to fuck itself and get halfway humane national healthcare, but we have made some progress. It happens. It happens slowly, and it happens more in spite of the people in office than because of them, but it happens.
Generally accepted by who? Nobody would give campaign promises any weight if we didn't expect the candidate to at least make an effort. It's not like a politician - any politician - can say "Yeah, I know I campaigned on a $15 minimum wage but c'mon. You know I wasn't serious about that, right?" It matters that Hilary was "pulled left" on any given issue because that means she will be judged on her ability to deliver promises that she would not otherwise have made. You're not dumb. This is elementary shit. You understand it except when you decide you don't feel like it. Like how you decide that maybe there's something to eat other than grapes (sour or otherwise). "Gee these grapes are sour, definitely don't eat them" but there's nothing else to eat, dude. So you can have arguments about the finer points of these grapes over that grapes or you can say "WAKE UP SHEEPLE THE ONLY TRUE FOOD IS DODO FILET" and then get salty when you get called on your BS. I'll say this: your approach isn't healthy. By steadfastly insisting that all alternatives are bad, you create a world for yourself in which you have no agency, no alternatives, and no control over your destiny. How's that working out for you?