One of the main problems with democracy is that a skilled rhetorical speaker can make anything sound good with speech and oversimplifications.
Step One: Figure out whatever thing your target audience wants.
Step Two: Find a way to make it look like what you want, will lead to what they want.
Step Three: Minimize, ignore, or demonize the opposition and counterpoints, especially the individuals in the opposition.
People who don't understand the proper procedures or hows (as opposed to whats) of thinking, are in danger of falling for this. Sadly this means well over 90% of the American People. I imagine the same is true in other countries, though I have no personal experience in them.
Politicians who pander to the masses and tell them what they want to hear win over politicians who tell the people what they don't want to hear, even and unfortunately when that is the truth. Same thing with lawyers, everyone wants to hear "I can win you this case," except someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. Logically, one of those opposing counsels will be wrong and they know it. Thus it isn't ethical to promise results, only representation (combined with the inability to read the mind of 12 pissed off strangers shoved into a jury box...). Politicians are kind of the same thing in a way.
I would personally, though I realize this could never be real, care more about how that person makes decisions. A politician can promise X, but if X is dependent upon a legislative vote, then there simply is no guarantee until and unless that politician can read the other legislators' minds. They can't. It would be interesting to know how that politician intends to convince other legislators, because that will increase the politician's chances of actually passing X.