In terms of when to expect a call generally, PA and AZ are clearly trending up, and will be called when the margin passes a certain threshold (Likely 0.5%.) NV and AZ are more about reducing ambiguity by continuing to count.
My own sense is that Georgia is so close with so few outstanding votes that no call is coming anytime soon. Pennsylvania is chugging inexorably toward a call, likely this afternoon or evening.
Nevada and Arizona are a bit more opaque, since the direction in which the votes are trending is still more ambiguous. If I had to guess based on everything I've seen, I'd say NV is currently a lot closer to a call than AZ.
Update: Decision Desk has already made the call, on the basis of PA. (I'd missed that.) Read this as my guesses as to when other outlets will follow suit.
(Also, the first "AZ" in the first tweet should be "GA.")
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The kid wanted to practice guitar, and couldn't find a pick. The closest substitute I could find was an 1800-year-old Roman coin I bought in a cheap lot of uncleaned coins this summer. She's using it now.
The first you should always look for in a "Biden should pardon Trump" thinkpiece is whether the author acknowledges that presidents cannot pardon people for violations of state law. If they do not, the rest of the piece isn't worth reading.
We're going to be seeing a LOT of these in the next few months, with the premise that if Biden doesn't pardon, it'll "put Trump in front of the news cameras for the next four years, battling potential criminal and civil charges." But a federal pardon does nothing to prevent that.
Richard Nixon wasn't facing prosecution in state courts, so Ford's pardon—for better or worse—closed the book on his legal exposure. But that's not an outcome that Biden has the power to bring about.
And if you want to know what AOC thinks about left messaging, just do a Twitter search on the terms she puts in quotes in this tweet. She knows what she's doing here, and what she's talking about.
A couple more things here: First, AOC didn't pick this fight, on this day. Spanberger chose to bring this to AOC's door, and it would have been malpractice for her to stay silent. Mad about infighting? Go be mad at Spanberger.
Folks are offering this quote as a counterpoint to my read on the above, but I don't think it is. (Stipulating, of course, to the fact that searching for an intellectual throughline in a Trump speech is a mug's game.)
Trump has been saying for weeks that the outcome that matters is the Election Night outcome—that whoever's ahead then is the legitimate winner and that if the lead shifts thereafter it's not just suspect but presumptively illegitimate. But that's not what he's saying here!
My favorite Connery movie ever is Robin and Marian (1976), which imagines what happens when Robin Hood comes returns from two decades on the Crusades to a Nottingham in which he's been turned into a myth.
Richard Harris plays Richard the Lionheart as an addled, vicious despot and the movie's Crusades are a genocidal, pointless war of empire, and that's just the first fifteen minutes.
When Robin gets back to Nottingham, he reconciles with Marian—a transcendent, angry, and age-appropriate (!) Audrey Hepburn in one of her last roles—and tries to construct a life of meaning and honor out of the pieces of his legend.
Any idea what "4 Justices (plus1)" is supposed to mean here? I mean, other than "five justices." I feel like there's a secret Trumpworld code thing I'm missing in this tweet.
Before RBG's death, I'd have assumed that if Trump was talking smack about "4 Justices (plus1)," he meant the four liberals and Roberts, but that doesn't work anymore, and no obvious alternate explanation springs to mind. Maybe liberals plus Roberts are the four?
I guess that's it, right? The four justices he assumes will vote against him, plus whichever of the loyal five happens to defect in his nightmare scenario.