# Conservatives rally behind Santorum

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-rally-behind-santorum/609651>\
**Category:** Politics & Elections\
**Created:** [January 16, 2012, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-rally-behind-santorum/609651 "2012-01-16T02:13:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-rally-behind-santorum/609651/61 "2012-01-21T21:35:50Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> So when people talk about candidates going after the evangelical vote, they are talking about Jimmy Carter’s voter base?
> 
> It doesn’t matter that Jimmy Carter was a self identified evangelical in 1976, he would not be competitive for the evangelical vote today. There has been such a merger if conservative ideas into the evangelical ideology that evangelical=conservative. I don’t see how anyone could argue otherwise.

Perhaps reading all the arguments in this thread will give you a clue. You might note that there is a phrase – conservative evangelicals – that more accurately captures what you think of as just plain old ‘evangelicals’ means. Your are wrong.

And that’s why this thread ran off track from the first post (yours). You are mixing up all these terms as if they are interchangeable and they are not. Evangelicals are only a relatively small percentage of conservatives, though a relatively high percentage of evangelicals are conservative.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2012, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-rally-behind-santorum/609651/62 "2012-01-22T03:29:51Z")

</div>

> [@Boyo\_Jim](#):
>
> Perhaps reading all the arguments in this thread will give you a clue. You might note that there is a phrase – conservative evangelicals – that more accurately captures what you think of as just plain old ‘evangelicals’ means. Your are wrong.
> 
> And that’s why this thread ran off track from the first post (yours). You are mixing up all these terms as if they are interchangeable and they are not. Evangelicals are only a relatively small percentage of conservatives, though a relatively high percentage of evangelicals are conservative.

I certainly contributed to the derailing of this thread but this is a much better stating of the point I was basically trying to get across.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\
**Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-rally-behind-santorum/609651/63 "2012-02-02T18:54:27Z")

</div>

Sharron Angle (who scuttled Republican Senate chances against Harry Reid) endorses Santorum

Santorum to the C.U.M.-back trail. WARNING, hideous picture of crazy woman in high definition leads off the article.

[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/rick-santorum-snags-sharron-angle-endorsement-2012-republican-presidential-bid-article-1.1015992?localLinksEnabled=false](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/rick-santorum-snags-sharron-angle-endorsement-2012-republican-presidential-bid-article-1.1015992?localLinksEnabled=false)

* * *

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-rally-behind-santorum/609651.md?page=3)