Even if you're assumption is correct (which I don't agree with), it's not the job of Scientific American or even the media to be concerned about polarization. Scientific American should provide objective information about matters within its domain expertise, of which the candidate's impact and leverage of science is appropriate.

FYI I also don't agree that it leads to "another swing voter who could go either say cling tighter to the Republican party." This kind of thinking is what leads to creating the false equivalence that both parties are relatively equal, which significantly benefits any party that acts in an extremely polarized and deceitful manner, since it can rely on the media to launder their actions to look roughly equivalent to the other party.