Rubio’s Road to Failure

While campaigning in Florida, Marco Rubio urged Ohioans to vote for John Kasich in order to stop Donald Trump. Most liberal and moderately conservative voters would support this move as an earnest effort to stop Trump from solidifying his already established position as the Republican front-runner. Though strongly opposed to Trump’s campaign, I could not be more disappointed with this type of crude politics. Presidential candidates must stand up for their respective beliefs and promote their viewpoints without relying on competition with others.

Rubio only undermined his credibility amongst his voters with his statement. He admitted to his weakness and simultaneously empowered Trump’s image. Time has shown that the antagonism between the mainstream media and Trump’s opinions has only enraged his supporters. Rubio’s statement showed his justified hesitance about his success in Ohio. More importantly, his supporters felt betrayed, as their support for Rubio had been reinterpreted as their opposition to Trump.

Trump’s influence in the presidential race has strengthened with every one of his wins. Trump never bothered to spend money on his campaign, because the positive and negative social media surrounding his campaign bolstered his popularity. Rubio’s desperate move only strengthened the arrogance of Trump’s supporters and made Rubio himself seem helpless.

Perhaps nothing would have changed if Rubio had not made the aforementioned mistakes.

Unlike Ted Cruz, Rubio never developed a reliable connection with his voters. Take, for example, his attack on Trump at the Houston debate, his lack of on-the-ground campaigning and his memorized (as Chris Christie pointed out) speeches and responses. By deviating from his amiable personality, Rubio led his supporters into a state of confusion. Voters wanted to see the Rubio they knew, not the Rubio that came through on the campaign trail.

Perhaps nothing would have changed if Rubio had not made the aforementioned mistakes. In a time when most Republican voters want something radically different from the status quo regime, Rubio’s moderate stance on most issues did not resonate with voters. Rubio’s statement to Ohioan voters shows just how polarized the Republican Party has become.

Mark Twain summarizes the direction of the Party in the following definition that aptly suits Trump: “Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.” Trump’s rash and heavily advertised rhetoric attracts voters who had never before involved themselves in the political process. Rubio, though an eloquent and passionate orator, brought no excitement to the race; we must blame news organizations for focusing their attention on Trump and failing to provide full coverage of other candidates’ campaigns.  In a time when media discusses Trump so often, Republican candidates must assume a fatalistic approach towards Trump and dedicate themselves to promoting their own ideas. Rubio learned his lesson, or did he learn that it was simply the wrong time?