The Atlantic has just endorsed Hillary Clinton for president of the United States in their most recent issue.

While endorsing candidates is not new for newspapers and news magazines, this is only the third presidential candidate The Atlantic has ever endorsed.  In all three endorsements, Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon B. Johnson and now Clinton, The Atlantic’s editorial staff’s decision to support a candidate emerged from what they view as a direct threat to American democracy.

Similar to their opposition to Barry Goldwater in 1964, the 156-year-old magazine focused mostly on the unique negative aspects of Donald Trump’s candidacy.  The Atlantic described the Republican nominee as “he most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.”

They have a reputation as a relatively non-partisan publication and admitted had the Republican nominee been John McCain, Mitt Romney, George W. Bush or any of his primary opponents, they would not have made the endorsement.  But given Trump’s complete lack of experience in public service and transparent ignorance for any duties of the president, The Atlantic felt a moral obligation to denounce his candidacy for the only possible alternative in the Democratic nominee Clinton.

There is a legitimate question to be asked in regards to the impact of print journalism’s endorsement of candidates on the ballot.  That being said, historically significant papers like The New York Times, USA Today and The Atlantic can still make a statement on the election with their choice.  While most papers endorse a candidate every four years, the fact that The Atlantic has only endorsed a candidate three times in its’ long, storied  history speaks volumes to the existential threat that Donald Trump poses to America.

Even many conservative newspapers who have supported Republicans throughout their history have refused to endorse Trump in this unique election year.  Despite some not coming out in favor of Clinton, simply denouncing Trump will have an impact on their readers, particularly in the case of local papers with loyal readership.

There is no question that Clinton has many flaws as a candidate and many of her decisions during the course of her career in public service are subject to legitimate scrutiny.  That being said, any serious person or media outlet be they liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican, can see the painfully obvious difference in the qualifications of these two candidates. Trump has scapegoated his way to the Republican nomination and routinely exploited average Americans’ genuine economic anxieties while simultaneously insulting our intelligence along the way.

At first, his routine was rather entertaining for the news media, they assumed he would fail to gain traction and ultimately fizzle out during the primary.  But the chickens are coming home to roost and the prospect of a Trump presidency is unsettling, even to most Republicans.

Now, the narcissistic demagogue with a penchant for foreign dictators and casual references to war crimes is one step away from the Oval Office.  It is becoming increasingly unlikely that he becomes president as his ignorance and lack of any experience in governing become more obvious and troubling by the day.

We cannot take the risk.

News outlets and public servants with any shred of credibility are making it abundantly clear that this man should not and cannot become the 45th President of the United States of America.