The distinction is irrelevant.
Not by violating your ethics and the editorial standards of your publication. I've otherwise addressed this point in #11 and #19.
Again, the distinction between party and party nominee is irrelevant to this debate. Political commentary has no business in a science magazine period.
An endorsement of a political candidate is ipso facto a political stand. The specific reasons given for it are irrelevant.
Science is simply knowledge--a tool to be applied, nothing more or less. It has no will, no consciousness, no moral governance. The application of knowledge (science) is dictated by codes of laws, ethics, and principles. Without these things, science is useless or, just as often, phenomenally destructive.
To argue that transgressing good laws, ethics, and principles is justifiable for sake of technological advancement is like arguing that throwing away the steering wheel, brakes, and windshield on a car to make the engine 25% larger is a good idea. It betrays a profound ignorance of how the car (science) works and why the wheel, brakes, and windshield (editorial standards of scientific publications) are indispensable.
I wish I could convince you of how important these standards are. I wish the SA editors understood it. Ah well, if wishes were horses...