IMO, your comment is flawed to absurdity, simply because you're attempting to apply human terms to the motives and behaviors of politicians. Here's a more appropriate analogy to show you where you're going wrong: A pack of jackals slays a lone, defenseless antelope and begins to feast. Unfortunately for them, a bigger and stronger pack of hyenas now comes along to chase off the jackals and lay claim to the spoils. The notion of these two rival predator packs sharing the carcass between them so that everyone gets a meal would be a complete non-starter, of course, as it is not in the nature of predator animals to behave in such ways. The badly outnumbered jackals are in a position of weakness and are forced to retreat (at least temporarily), surrendering all of this perfectly good fresh meat to their rivals, the hyenas. Now, do you really think any of the retreating jackals actually gives two shits <i>which individual hyena</i> ends up getting first dibs on their lost prize? Could any of the jackals care less for the well-being or 'best interests' of the carcass? If they could ensure that the meat winds up in the hands of a relatively 'friendly' or 'ideologically similar' individual hyena, would they even care? Think about it...
Many of our founders, Washington, Jefferson and Franklin to name a few would be atheist today. They were smart reasonable men who would take the scientific evidence and the total lack of evidence for Jesus and thus wouldn't be modern day Jesus fanatics. You do realize that politicians who don't believe in Jesus will say they do to keep their jobs don't you and many businessmen pretend to believe in your pretend god because it's good for business.
After Iraq and Afghanistan I doubt the country would elect somebody with such an aggressive stance on foreign policy.
On second thought, if your sole meaning was that Democratic <b>voters</b> (not Democratic politicians) could have a say in which Republican will succeed Obama... well, then never mind my clever little analogy above, because in that case I guess you kind of have a point.
That's what revisionists would like everyone to believe, actually they would say they were back then but it's far from the truth... but that's the topic of another thread that has been thrown around over and over again.
Many scientist, professors, intellectuals and businessmen are atheist today. Some from the past would be atheist in today's world. My list was a probable list. If not those men there would definatly be others who would look at the knowledge we have now and would be atheist.