[Strategerist]

This isn't going to hurt Mourdock with atheists because he never had them to begin with.

That Mourdock's statement would only be offensive to self-proclaimed atheists is a fantasy.

Very few people self-identify (particularly publicly) as atheists because of the stigma.

But there are plenty of people to whom the very idea that some sort of deity is making things happen on Earth (regardless of what those things are) is somewhat silly, and you'd be amazed how many of them vote Republican most of the time (and in many cases those votes are needed to win an election), and generally put up with candidates flaunting their religiosity, in recognition of the importance of that to a lot of the electorate - up to a point.

[MitchellC]

That Mourdock's statement would only be offensive to self-proclaimed atheists is a fantasy.

I'm sure a number of 'soft thinkers,' particularly women, will switch from Mourdock because of this. But I'm sure that many, many more will switch from Mourdock if a pile-on that includes vocal Republican men ensues.

This is ALL about shaming Romney-voting women away from Mourdock. Mourdock's own statement after the debate, already posted at least twice on this thread, ought to be enough to dissuade anyone here considering in joining in on a pile-on.