Atheism doesn't poll well. That begs the question of....... why?

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Yes and no - remember Carter left the Southern Baptists because of their misogyny

and so his 1970s "evangelical" identification may well not apply now.

Losing my religion for equality

I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.
...
I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.
...
The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html

Say something that during an election, and not many people will apply the "evangelical" label to you in the USA, even if he still has the literal meaning of wanted to "spread the good news".

The Pew poll also linked from the NPR report indicates atheism is still a bigger problems for Democratic primaries than being evangelical:

There is a sizable partisan divide in views of a candidate’s religion. For Republicans, a candidate being an evangelical Christian is a net positive (36% more likely, 5% less likely); for Democrats, more say it would decrease (27%) than increase (12%) their chances of supporting a candidate.

And while 70% of Republicans say they would be less likely to support a candidate who does not believe in God, Democrats are more ambivalent: 42% say they would be less likely to support an atheist, while 49% say it wouldn’t matter to them.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/05/19/for-2016-hopefuls-washington-experience-could-do-more-harm-than-good/

(so that's at most 9% of Democrats saying atheism would increase their chances of support).

Well, the issue may not come up; but that's the point of this thread, isn't it? That atheist candidates wouldn't want it to come up, because with significant numbers of potential voters, there's a big downside, but little upside.