I have wondered about that for the longest time! Hawaii ...anyone

Actually, I think quite the opposite is what we should do. We should make a concerted effort to move liberals (not necessarily non-believers) into conservative districts in order to break conservative control. I really don't know why the DNC doesn't start some kind of program to accomplish this. Concentration of liberals to an overwhelming extent in fewer districts helps us less than infiltration into conservative districts, especially ones with narrow margins.

Hitler was an avowed atheist.

Ironically someone else just claimed they were a "complete" atheist because they're also an anarchist. I dispense with that only to find an atheist that wants their own state ... lol.

Any attempt to form a religion or a political party or government based on atheism is, in my view, doomed to failure, because atheism is a narrow position on a single topic. It's not enough for a society to coalesce around. Atheists would be liberals, libertarians, conservatives. Indeed, the current bias toward liberal would tend to disappear as atheism gains purchase in society. Any movement self-selects for non-conformity and liberality early in its existence. Later on, not so much.

Finally the problem with governments is not theism as such. It's not like removing theism makes all the difficulties go away. The main problem with the US government is that it's heavily corrupted by money in politics. It's true that Christian fundamentalism has an outsize influence and pours gasoline on the fire, but the core problem is that leadership isn't beholden to ordinary voters, only to the elites and the chattering class. The elites find the religious to be useful fools.

Yes there will always be an agenda but I would rather it be a secular one than this project blitz bullshit we have going on now

Why would atheist leaders be any better than any other?

By the very nature of self-classification there is an agenda.