WI Gerald Ford Knew How To Eat A Tamale

"Unlike the analogous literature in psychology, this first wave of scholarship on political cues and 'information shortcuts' stressed their potential value while paying little attention to the ways in which they could lead voters astray. In one of the most colorful examples of an 'information shortcut,' political scientist Samuel Popkin suggested that Mexican-American voters had good reason to be suspicious of President Gerald Ford in 1976 because he didn't know how to eat a tamale--a shortcoming revealed during his Texas GOP primary campaign against Ronald Reagan, when he made the mistake of trying to down one without first removing its cornhusk wrapper. According to Popkin, 'Showing familiarity with a voter's culture is an obvious and easy test of ability to relate to the problems and sensibilities of the ethnic group and to understand and care about them.'8 Obvious and easy, yes--but was this a reliable test? Would Mexican-American voters have been correct to infer that Ford was less sensitive to their concerns than Reagan? I have no idea, and neither does Popkin."--Larry M. Bartels, "The Irrational Electorate," Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2008. https://wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/fall-2008-the-glory-and-the-folly/the-irrational-electorate/

I must admit that as fond as I am of having incidents like this decide close elections, I cannot quite do it in this case. Even if we assume a Ford more proficient in tamale-eating could have carried Texas, where Carter defeated Ford fairly narrowly (51.1-48.0) http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1976.txt Carter would still have 271 electoral votes--one vote more than necessary to win. And the other states with large Mexican-American voting populations--e.g., California and New Mexico--all went for Ford anyway. (Given the extreme closeness of Carter's victory in Ohio, would the small Mexican-American community there have made a difference? I doubt it. "In 1980 there were less than 120,000 Hispanics in Ohio, making up 1.1 percent of the state's total population." http://vocerolatinonews.com/hispanicpopulation.html The percentage was presumably even lower in 1976. And many of them were not Mexican-Americans; in Cleveland, at least, the Hispanic community was mostly Puerto Rican. https://case.edu/ech/articles/h/hispanic-community And no doubt many of the Mexican-Americans were not citizens or were too young to vote, and even of the very small number of Mexican-American voters, the number whose votes could have been changed if Ford had eaten the tamale properly would probably be quite small...)

Other famous food faux pas also don't seem to have changed election results:

(1) In 1972, George McGovern famously ordered a kosher hot dog and a glass of milk while campaigning for Jewish votes in New York--his handlers having apparently failed to brief him beforehand that mixing milk and meat was definitely not kosher; here too Popkin argued that it would not be irrational for Jewish voters to take this into account as indicating that McGovern "knew little about Jews and Jewish concerns." http://books.google.com/books?id=fAT-IREgyQ8C&pg=PA2 But Nixon's landslide was too big for this incident to have made any significant difference.) [1]

(2) "In 2003, while running for President of the United States, John Kerry made what was considered a major faux pas when campaigning in Philadelphia and went to Pat's King of Steaks and ordered a cheesesteak with Swiss." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheesesteak "According to the Philadelphia Daily News, 'reporters snickered,' because "in Philadelphia, ordering Swiss on a cheesesteak is like rooting for Dallas at an Eagles game. It isn't just politically incorrect; it could get you a poke in the nose.'" http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Cheesesteak But Kerry defeated Bush in Pennsylvania in 2004 anyway.

(3) Eating pizza with a fork and knife (which is common enough in Italy but frowned on in New York) didn't prevent de Blasio from being re-elected. http://gothamist.com/2014/01/10/honeymoons_over_de_blasio_spotted_e.php

[1] Speaking of Nixon, it's too early to judge the consequences of this incident: http://gothamist.com/2018/09/10/nixon_bagel_order_barf.php
 
Other famous food faux pas also don't seem to have changed election results:

Ed Milliband's infamous bacon butty photo was credited as part of the reason why he lost in 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Miliband_bacon_sandwich_photograph

So much was made of it that David Cameron somehow got away with eating a hot dog with a knife and fork during the same campaign. Of course, it later emerged that he also had a far worse pork based secret but he'd already won the election by then...
 
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.char...nt/campaign-tracker-blog/article64842197.html

‘ . . . On March 23 [1976], Reagan beat Ford 53 percent to 47 percent [in North Carolina primary]. That was enough to jump start his campaign and take it all the way to that summer’s convention in Kansas City. . . ’

and then, about five weeks later, the big one in Texas:

https://books.google.com/books?id=f...gan won a crushing victory over Ford”&f=false

‘ . . . On primary day [May 1, 1976], Reagan won a crushing victory over Ford in Texas, taking all ninety-six delegates at stake and winning most of the twenty-four congressional districts by better than two to one. . . ’

Reagan won a couple more, then Ford won some late primaries. It was a real contest.

And yes, the big Texas loss signaled to non-Texans and non-primary voters that Ford was vulnerable. So, I say, the tamale incident was probably one of many factors which made a difference.
 
Ford would have won if the election was held a week or two later OTL. Something minor changing like this likely gets him the win he needs.
 
. . . Something minor changing like this . . .
However, if things had been closer at the time of the Democratic National Convention, Carter likely would have run a different race.

As it was, he ran a race like a basketball team with a big lead putting the ball in deep freeze.
 
geraldfordtamale.JPG


April 10, 1976 during tour of Alamo (21 days before primary)

https://www.politifact.com/texas/ar...reminds-backers-fords-1976-gaffe-texas-tamal/

Ah, so there was a photo. Not good!
 
With the white collar, the lady looks as though she might be a food service worker, and yet . . .


FordTamale_AP-560x372.jpg

http://www.sporkful.com/when-a-tamale-determines-the-presidency/

Once we see her blue dress, name tag, and honorary shash, it’s clear she’s one of the honored guests, maybe even San Antonio mayor Lila Cockrell or one of the women in Daughters of the Republic of Texas.

http://remezcla.com/food/ford-tamal-eating-1976/

"Every newscast in Texas all weekend long...show[ed] Gerald Ford not knowing how to eat a tamale," says former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who was living in Texas at the time. "I am convinced that it was that gaffe with the tamale that cost [Ford] the state of Texas."
Really, Gov. Huckabee? Reagan decisively won Texas in the ‘76 Republican primary. Maybe avoiding that “gaffe” shaves that victory a little.
 
Last edited:
The 1976 GOP Primary: Ford, Reagan, and the Battle that Transformed Political Campaigns in Texas

Sean P. Cunningham, Oct. 2003

PDF —> https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/72737795.pdf

page 3:

‘ . . . On March 12, 1976, district officials announced that more than 20,000 students would be bused to satisfy the court’s desegregation compliance program. As if Dallas conservatives were not unhappy enough with these decisions, Judge Taylor announced that property taxes would be increased to fund the busing program. Reagan supported a constitutional amendment outlawing busing [Emphasis added]; Ford advocated limited federal intervention in elementary and secondary education, a softer stance necessitated by his need to maintain the support of moderates in other regions. . . ’
In order to appeal to his fellow conservatives, it sure looks like Ronald Reagan is pandering. And this from a man who it’s often claimed didn’t have a racist bone in his body, and who most probably should have known a damn sight better.
 

Deleted member 94680

Ed Milliband's infamous bacon butty photo was credited as part of the reason why he lost in 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Miliband_bacon_sandwich_photograph

So much was made of it that David Cameron somehow got away with eating a hot dog with a knife and fork during the same campaign. Of course, it later emerged that he also had a far worse pork based secret but he'd already won the election by then...

This post has nowhere near the number of likes it deserves!

The photo of the bacon sarnie eating was given credence and publicity by an already hostile press. How much does this factor into situations like these? Is a food-based faux-pas a symptom of a troubled campaign in , or a situation that causes a campaign trouble?
 
This post has nowhere near the number of likes it deserves!

The photo of the bacon sarnie eating was given credence and publicity by an already hostile press. How much does this factor into situations like these? Is a food-based faux-pas a symptom of a troubled campaign in , or a situation that causes a campaign trouble?

I agree with you to be honest - if Milliband had been more popular with the press (especially the more right wing/Tory section) then you'd never have been him looking a bit weird eating breakfast while Cameron eating a hot dog with a knife and fork would have been splashed all over the front pages (assuming there was a photo) and his history of post mortem livestock fun might have come out earlier. I don't remember if the more left wing papers such as the Mirror or the Guardian published the photos (although I don't think he was overwhelmingly popular with them either - from memory a lot of Labour supporters would rather have seen his brother as Labour leader).

I'm not old enough to know if it was the same for Ford - was he already unpopular with the press before this?

Of course there's also the infamous C. Montgomery Burns fish incident of the early 1990s too...
 
An extra 4 years from Ford could lead to an "80s Democratic Revolution" TL, or even if you get Bush/Kemp in '84 after a Carter who won in 1980's single term going as poorly as OTL you get BIG changes. Why? It's simple. No Reagan as president at any point, even if you get a "Kemp Revolution". That plus the Christian Right shakeup doesn't organize the same way as OTL -- Ford would be the one starting the IRS attacks on segregation academies, so even though Carter continues it he doesn't get the "credit"/blame. As a result, expect "pro-life" to basically stay a catholic issue.
 
Top