Good afternoon, and welcome to (A)Political. 10 days until its all over! Let's get to the latest stories:

The biggest non-endorsement of the 21st century was just given by none other than the Washington Post. The newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos will not be endorsing a candidate for the first time in 36 years. 

Tulsi Gabbard turned heads on Tuesday by announcing that she is now a Republican. The longtime democrat, and former democratic presidential candidate stated that she now views her former party as "completely unrecognizable."

Elon Musk is making waves with his PAC, as he is minting at least one new millionaire a day until the election comes to a close. It's creating jubilance on one side, and legal question marks on the other.

Lastly, we have some awesome merch coming out in the next couple weeks. Keep an eye out for an email for when it comes out and the exclusive drop we have!

Lets get into it! 

The Biggest Non-Endorsement of the 21st Century 

In a seismic shift that rattled the media landscape, The Washington Post declared Friday it would break its 36-year tradition of presidential endorsements. "The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election," the paper announced, sending shockwaves through its own newsroom and the broader journalistic community. This wasn't just another policy change - it marked the end of an era that began with Jimmy Carter's endorsement in 1976.

The news hit Post staffers like a thunderbolt. According to NPR's reporting, colleagues were "shocked" and "uniformly negative" about the decision. Editorial page editor David Shipley found himself in the uncomfortable position of delivering the news, though he maintained he "owns" the decision. The stated reasoning? To create an "independent space" where the paper steps back from telling readers how to vote.

Looking Back to Move Forward

Interestingly, this dramatic change actually represents a return to form for the venerable newspaper. The Post's statement dug deep into its archives, pulling out a prescient quote from their 1960 Editorial Board: "Hindsight has convinced us that it might have been wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation's Capital to have avoided formal endorsement." This wasn't just convenient historical cherry-picking - it was a recognition that sometimes the old ways had merit.

The paper's history with presidential endorsements reads like a story of reluctant participation. Before 1976, they made only one exception - backing Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Even in 1972, facing the Nixon presidency, they stood firm on their non-endorsement stance, asking themselves, "In talking about the choice of a President of the United States, what is a newspaper's proper role?"

The Road Ahead

The Post isn't naive about how this decision will be interpreted. Their statement acknowledges it "will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility." Yet they're standing their ground, framing this as a vote of confidence in their readers' ability to think for themselves.

"Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds," the paper declared. It's a bold stance, particularly for a paper that proclaims itself "the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world."

What makes this story particularly intriguing is the mystery surrounding its origin. As NPR's David Folkenflik noted on X, "It is not clear whether Post owner Jeff Bezos or Publisher/CEO Will Lewis made the call." This detail adds another layer of complexity to an already significant shift in American journalism.

The Post's decision forces us to confront larger questions about the role of traditional media in our democracy. In an era where trust in media institutions continues to erode, perhaps stepping back from explicit endorsements while doubling down on rigorous reporting and analysis isn't just a return to tradition - it's a path forward. As the Post puts it, they see this move as "consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects."

This isn't just about one newspaper's editorial policy - it's about reimagining how trusted media institutions can best serve democracy in an increasingly polarized age. Whether other major publications will follow suit remains to be seen, but the Post's decision has undoubtedly started a conversation that will echo through newsrooms across the country.

Subscribe to Default to read the rest.