The Atlantic endorsed Hillary Clinton on Wednesday, and the magazine wants you to know that this is a very big deal because it doesn't do this very often.

Now that's an epic tweet.

The Atlantic's decision to endorse a presidential candidate for just the third time in its history is certainly noteworthy. It is a statement that the magazine's editors view this year's election in historically important terms. The Atlantic cited "a moral aversion to slavery" when endorsing Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and a fear that electing Barry Goldwater in 1964 could send the United States "stumbling down the road taken by South Africa."

According to the Atlantic, the 2016 election is in the same class as the contests of 1860 and 1964, given that Donald Trump "might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency."

But if we're talking about holding sway over undecided or conservative voters — people who won't automatically vote for Clinton, anyway, in other words — then the recommendation of the Atlantic probably doesn't mean much.

More significant is the wave of conservative newspapers that have rejected Trump and backed Clinton. The list includes the Arizona RepublicCincinnati EnquirerDallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle.

Five other right-leaning papers have endorsed Libertarian Gary Johnson. They are the Detroit NewsChicago Tribune, Union Leader of Manchester, N.H., Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal and Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Trump has zero daily newspaper endorsements in the general election.

Few, if any, voters pick a candidate based solely on the advice of some news outlet's editorial board. But people on the fence could conceivably be influenced by the fact that a whole bunch of publications that normally back the Republican nominee are refusing to do so.

It is hard to imagine the Atlantic's endorsement, rare as it is, having the same effect.