Scientific American

179 years and the only time they endorsed was against Trump. Almost like he's a piece of shit or something.

Vaccines are important but a primary reason I'm voting for Harris is because if she doesn't win, this could be the last election. There are morons voting for Trump just because they think they're getting "revenge" for the existence of trans people by voting red. Both sides have wildly different priorities.

Not necessarily. You could also be a virus.

They used to just look sideways at it instead of straight up denial.

Is that a relatively recent phenomenon or has it been that way for decades?

If it's the former, it might explain why they didn't need to before.

At the national level, that's true. The candidates are usually quite distinct and very well known, so holding a particular endorsement is unlikely to change anything.

However, I do find them useful in local elections. In those, the candidates are usually (but not always) pretty closely aligned, so it's hard to make a decision based off of what their campaign is promising. They also frequently involve candidates that are fairly new to politics, so it can be difficult to learn more about their past outside of what their campaign puts forth. So I'll usually learn something worthwhile from an endorsement that can help me make a decision. I also have a good opinion of some of the local magazines that make me more willing to trust their recommendations.

We're the most social creatures on the planet. It may not sway anyone, but it could help keep moral up for those of us more at risk for skipping from sheer depression or apathy.

Correct.

It means that the population of this country relies heavily on the opinions of heads of publications, heads of corporations and focus group tested celebrity tweets to make decisions on who they should vote for to run their lives.

This, in turn, means that our elections are completely meaningless. The win goes to the richest candidate.