Tweet This
Marco Rubio’s performance in the New Hampshire Republican debate is being ridiculed among voters, in the press and on social media. The word often used to describe Rubio’s performance is one of the most damaging in communication. He’s being called a “Robot.” On Monday, less than two full days after the debate, a Google search for “Marco Rubio” + “Robot” brought up 2.5 million results.
Robot is not a good word. In the workplace robots are displacing American employees at a large number of tasks, eliminating humans from entire fields. Robots have a utility, but we don’t want them as friends and neighbors. We don’t ‘trust’ them.
Florida senator Marco Rubio may have lost much of the ‘trust’ factor he was building ahead of the debate. I’ve written that his message and delivery were beginning to win hearts and minds. On paper, Rubio’s policy platforms might still win minds, but his debate performance may have lost some hearts. In persuasion research we know that candidates who win must appeal to both hearts and minds.
Worse yet, reporters and bloggers covering Saturday’s debate are using words such as “glitch” and “malfunction,” all of which raise the specter of an uncaring, unfeeling and pre-programmed robot. A parody appeared on YouTube over the weekend set to the old Styx song and titled, “Marco Roboto.”
In case you missed it, in Saturday’s debate Rubio relied on his anti-Obama ‘talking point’ not once, not twice, but four times in the debate. New Jersey governor Chris Christie scored major points when he bluntly called attention to it. “There it is!” Christie interrupted. “The memorized 25-second speech.” Christie used the moment to remind voters that as governor of a state he’s expected to get things done. “Every morning when a United States senator wakes up, they think about what kind of speech can I give or what kind of bill can I drop? Every morning, when I wake up, I think about what kind of problem do I need to solve for the people who actually elected me?” said Christie.
Robots do not have hearts. Everything they say sounds programmed. We call candidates who sound programmed ‘canned.’ The word ‘canned’ comes up repeatedly in the reviews of Rubio’s debate performance. We are more likely to believe someone who speaks from the heart, and Rubio lost the heart on Saturday. A strong message wrapped in a compelling story are absolutely required for persuasion to take place, but if you fail to make a genuine heart-to-heart connection with your audience, the message will still fall flat.
As a communication specialist who has worked with business and political leaders on the right and the left of American politics, I’ve been questioning Rubio’s scripted speeches on the campaign trail. One article in particular caught my attention. It appeared in The New York Times at the end of year. The title said it all: “Chris Christie’s Punch Lines vs. Marco Rubio’s Polish on Iowa Campaign Trail.” The reporter covering the stump speeches of both candidates noted that Christie was humorous, informal, spontaneous and self-deprecating. Rubio, however, left a far different impression. Rubio’s answers were ‘mechanical,’ ‘meticulous,’ ‘polished applause lines tumble from his mouth.’
Rubio seemed to get the hint and became more personal and seemingly spontaneous as he campaigned in New Hampshire. “Rubio Plays Up Personal Side,” read the title of this article. These dueling headlines bring up a problem. Voters want to know what they’re getting. Rubio’s surge in Iowa and his strong showing in wider polls showed that his message was connecting with a broad range of Republican voters. If Rubio doesn’t find his heart and find it quickly, his candidacy may have seen its best days. We love great speechmakers (John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama), we love great storytellers (Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton), we love people with heart. What we don’t like are robots. They scare us. ‘Robotic’ is not the word a candidate wants as a label.
Watch on Forbes:
