A nonsensical question certainly. But the present primary season here in the US certainly has many trying to persuade us that if God is not a Republican, since He can't vote He wants all of us who are not abject sinners to place a Republican in the White House. (For the rest of this rant, let's try to forget that one of the messages of the Bible is that we are ALL abject sinners whether we hail from Texas or not.)
The message currently employed by the evangelical right is that any of us deluded enough to vote for the other party have called the wrath of the almighty upon this country and unless we return to the Lord as defined by the eventual party nominee (which of course is presumed to be the message bearer) and elect that nominee as our president so that under his leadership laws can be passed to ensure that every United States citizen adheres strictly to the Biblical interpretation peculiar to his denomination or sect, our country is going to perish in hellfire (or at least a series of tsunamies or hurricanes both of which have lately been ascribed to the picque of a God with His nose out of joint).
I think it speaks volumes about the desperation of the republican party that "I should be president because God approves of me." has become a viable campaign strategy. With a total dearth of new ideas on how to relieve the country of its current economic woes while still financing the killing of muslims and other innocent bystanders the republican hopefuls have nothing better to offer than "I know God better than you do."
And, unfortunately, people who have more fear than intelligence are buying this steaming load. What the evangelicals' darlings are espousing is the gradual institution of a theocracy. They really hate to have to dance around it, but for those who still remember a document called the Constitution that pesky establishment clause keeps them from outright proclamation of the Southern Baptist candidate. Let's bear in mind that soon after the establishment of a theocracy comes the purging of heretics.
Of course the critical observer has to laugh at the self induced paths of hypocrisy this produces. We have a Mormon candidate proclaiming that his being a Mormon won't in the least influence his decisions and policies. In my opinion that brands him as not much of a Mormon at all. If you really have faith you should definitely let that faith guide your hand in leadership. Which means that the stance of the gentleman from Texas who basically openly says "Every American should be forced to adhere to Bible teachings as I understand them" is the more honest of the two (dare I say "God help us."?). Then we have the spectacle of at least two of the candidates admitting that they used to be wrong (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!) but have seen the light and now can be trusted implicity in spite of: 1) now saying that they stand for things they loudly denounced in the past or, 2) claiming that in spite of being unethical servants, adulterous mates and unfeeling ogres they are now really good guys.
How gullible are we?
Judging from early results here in the land of sheep, pretty gullible.