Politics Live with The Fix

Jun 11, 2020

Got a burning politics question, or just something you’re curious about? Each week, starting Thursday at noon, The Fix team chats with readers about the big stories in politics.

Read our previous discussions and sign up for our newsletter, The 5-Minute Fix, a must-read politics cheat sheet sent every weekday afternoon.

Hi chatters: It’s been such a newsy week, I’m wondering how it is only Thursday. But also, how is it already June? We’re less than five months away from Election Day on Nov. 3. 

Since our last chat, Aaron Blake has written about two big things that will happen between now and Nov. 3: The Republican National Convention, mostly not in Charlotte anymore, at which they’re sticking with a 2016 platform that is pretty awkward for 2020 President Trump. He’s also got an updated list of the most logical picks for Joe Biden’s running mate, with Sen. Kamala Harris at the top. 

More immediately, the country is still grappling with racial injustice. Eugene Scott pointed out just how broad the support for the protests has become, and how remarkable that is. And Amber Phillips explored why it will still be so hard for Congress to act even while that’s the case. 

President Trump’s response to the protests and the sentiment behind them has been front and center again this week. We covered his conspiracy theory-based tweet about a Buffalo protester and JM Rieger covered his administration's continued efforts to explain last week’s Lafayette Square park photo-op.

What's on your minds? 

What is the Posts commitment to ongoing coverage of protests as they become less sensational?

The Post has continued to cover the protests which have already become less sensational. I imagine the news value of the protests will directly shape how much attention they get. The issue of police violence and lawmakers' efforts to respond to it will certainly continue to get attention.

Why do commentators believe that the GOP can easily move beyond Trump if he is defeated in November? Its not like he is going to give up his twitter account or stop appearing on Fox News and Democrats won't let voters forget all the videos of Republicans defending him.

I think this is up for debate, but I'm with you -- skeptical that Trumpism goes away when the president leaves office. His supporters have stuck by him through thick and thin for a reason: He's been able to communicate with them in a way other politicians haven't. Could Trump's children start getting involved in politics -- if not running for office, then maybe being influential donors and wielding super PAC money? 

But that future isn't a given. Perhaps another Republican candidate comes along that reshapes the party monumentally, away from Trumpism. 

I think the former is more likely, though.

The Robert E Lee statue is back in the news. I remember reading after the problems in Virginia a few years ago, that General Lee had written that he didn't want statues or memorials to the war erected. He believed they would inhibit healing the country. Did I imagine this? What are the chances he Lee statue will be removed?

If the response to other statues around the country and world is any indication, it seems like the statue could be brought down by Americans unwilling to allow it to stand even if legislators do not voluntarily remove it. Support for these statues remaining where they are is on a decline and that could continue to be the case.

that the state (or county or municipality or precinct) provide adequate voting machines on election day in November? Force them to hire and pay poll workers so there is a greater chance they will show up? Force them to have back up paper ballots if the line gets too long? Seems like the sort of thing a judge could order, but you have to get into court first.

I mean, it's the basic job of elected officials to make sure voting machines work and poll workers are trained and voters who requested absentee ballots know where their ballots are.

Our Washington Post colleagues following what happened in Georgia on Tuesday (a disaster) report that officials were warned for months about problems to how they were planning to hold their primary. It seems like those concerns went unaddressed. 

First I would like to thank the 5 minute fix for all you do and your style. My question; Although unlikely, if President Trump should not continue as the Republican candidate in 2020, who would you see replacing him? e.g. Mitt Romney John Kasich William Weld Colin Powell Mike Pompeo OTHER Could you see this scenario happening?? 

Honestly, at this point, I can't fathom anyone else being the 2020 GOP candidate for the president of the United States other than Donald Trump.

Despite the president's recent claim that Covid-19 is 'ashes' now, infections have increased in several states and the president is planning rallies. Will crowds turn out for him? I'm bewildered that many people may risk their lives on his word that the danger is gone when it's easily proven that it has not.

That remains to be seen. Trump's base is incredibly loyal to him and are often in parts of the country that have been less receptive to messages advising Americans to stay locked down. So if he tells them that they can gather publicly - and that doing so is essential to preserving America as they see it, there's a good chance they will respond to that in a way that favors him.

Assuming he loses (you know what they say when you assume) and Democrats retake the Senate, and hold the house we could be in for a very chaotic time between election night and Jan 3rd when the new congress is sworn in. During this purgatory of a time, do you think Republicans would go along with any shenanigans Trump tries to pull, or will they finally stand up to him since he'll be gone?

Well, we know that Senate Republicans are increasingly frustrated with having to answer for Trump and his conspiracy theories -- Joe Scarborough and murder; a 75-year-old injured Buffalo protester being antifa. 

So that's context to keep in mind. Trump and Senate Republicans are also focused on putting as many conservative judges on federal benches as possible. 

But the rest of your question has too many hypotheticals to answer. (I think it's going to be tight for Senate Democrats to win the Senate. Though they can do it.) 

I doubt Germany has monuments of and military bases named after its Nazi leaders, nor Italy of its WW II Fascist leaders. By the same logic, why should the US honor its traitors in this day and age?

By the same logic, they wouldn't. But that logic -- to be ashamed of past atrocities -- isn't applied to the confederacy by a lot of people, especially in the states that used to belong to it. That's by design, due to historical efforts to glorify the pre-Civil War south in official ways. I grew up in the Deep South and I'm still, to this day, learning things about the Civil War that were presented in a rosy light in the culture and in my formal education. Those lessons lead people to want to want to glorify "heritage" and not reckon with the legacy of enslavement and racism. Germany, I understand, has been much more willing to confront the ugly realities. 

It is also worth noting that some countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union have kept Soviet-era statues but have moved them out of public areas and into parks: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/lists/mighty-soviet-era-relics-you-can-still-visit-russia-ukraine/

The Trump campaign has asked CNN to withdraw and apologize for a poll that has Biden ahead by 14 points. Considering that the President keeps talking about his great internal polls, it would be simpler to just release one of those as a counterpoint. Of course, there is doubt as to whether the sunny polls do exist but, if they do, this is the campaign's chance to rebut CNN.

That's the thing about polling: If you think it's wrong, don't have John McLaughlin write a dubious memo about it. Do your own poll and let your pollsters affix their name and credibility to the results.

Every pollster has to deal with the consequences that come with that -- including McLaughlin, who has a series of very bad misses on his resume.

One of my far-right, Clinton-hating family members has been posting the story linked below on Facebook several times a day for weeks. I have searched the Internet for other sources, but this is the only one I have found. I hope you can provide some perspective. As Hillary really going to testify again on her emails? Thank you! https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/02/hillary-clinton-must-testify-in-email-case-judge-rules.html

The case is being appealed at the moment. Politico covered this in more detail last week: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/02/appeals-court-clinton-testify-emails-297132

It is also worth noting that a Justice Department probe launched more than two years ago to investigate possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Hillary Clinton's time at the State Department effectively ended earlier this year and found nothing of consequence.

Writing from Dallas - In the last few days, I've seen Trump campaign ads (from the actual campaign, not independent groups) running often on both the local channels' newscasts and somewhat bizarrely during MSNBC programming like "Morning Joe" and "MTP Daily." I'm curious as to your thoughts on why they would be spending money to advertise in Texas five months out. Perhaps their internal polling is actually tracking what the public polls are showing - that at the moment at least, Texas is neck-and-neck?

Recent polling shows that Trump is not as safely ahead as his team would have liked -- even in states that in the past have been easier wins for Republican candidates. The well-funded campaign is taking no chances and trying their best to get their message to as many voters as possible -- even in places that they may not have campaigned before.

Mitt Romney has been one of the more outspoken Republicans when it comes to Trump. Given others (e.g., Flake, Corker, Amash, Hurd) have seen their political careers come to a premature end, that's no small thing. But what is Romney's endgame? He doesn't seem to be interested in being a legislator like Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden, so a long-term stay in the Senate doesn't seem in the cards. Is he shooting for a Cabinet spot in a potential Biden administration? Another presidential run in 2024 as the one to save the GOP from Trumpism?

I don't have any inside knowledge into the Romney camp right now, but it seems to me like he's just trying to stick with his principles in governing -- and sometimes that requires speaking out against Trump. 

I'd be curious to talk to him about where he thinks the Republican Party will go after Trump. If it's away from Trump, well then Romney is certainly an obvious candidate to lead the party from the Senate on where to go next.

Can we say yet whether the constant use of Twitter has been more helpful or more harmful to Donald Trump's Presidency? Yes, it gets his unfiltered message out there, but increasingly the message has been counter-productive or hasn't been well received. It doesn't appear that many--if any--of his Republican colleagues are embracing the frequent use of Twitter to lob their thoughts into the public realm.

I don't know what argument could be made that shows that the president's use of Twitter has been helpful for his presidency or his party overall. His team and his fellow party members spend more time having to defend or pretend that they don't see the presidents tweets than I imagine anyone in lawmaking would like. And ultimately, he is a distraction from many of the issues that Americans claim to care about most.

What if there's a surge in Covid-19 a couple weeks after his proposed Tulsa campaign rally? Or after an all-out Republican National Convention? Wouldn't taking such risks ultimately hurt Trump's electoral prospects come November?

Attributing a covid-19 outbreak to a single event can be tricky -- even amid record seven-day averages in 14 states, it is hard to determine whether those may have been due to reopening plans, policing protests or neither.

Anthony S. Fauci, the nation's leading infectious disease expert, has expressed concern about the possibility of new outbreaks from protests and other experts have expressed concern about outbreaks stemming from political rallies.

Whether an outbreak stemming from a political rally could hurt Trump in November is unclear at this point.

I know that it's fairly early, but based on what you are seeing, in particular the Senate elections that may result in switching parties, e.g., Alabama, Maine, Colorado, Arizona, N. Carolina, and given the results in yesterday's Democratic primary in Georgia, how likely do you believe it is that the Democrats will take control of the Senate as a result of the 2020 election?

I continue to be somewhat skeptical. Democrats are showing leads in Arizona and Colorado, especially. But I have a difficult time seeing them holding Alabama or winning a state like Georgia.

If they lose Alabama, they need four other takeovers to make it happen. That means Arizona and Colorado plus (most likely) Maine and North Carolina. Neither of those will be easy, and if the national numbers narrow, as I think they will, they will be hard-fought.

The one thing the Democrats going for them is that they have MANY more opportunities than the GOP does. And if they can unexpectedly put some races in play, maybe they don't need NC and ME?

Does it bother him that Republicans expect him to fix everything? Does it bother him to be a token?

The Senator has not expressed publicly any dissatisfaction with the role the GOP expects him to play in addressing America's race issues. He seems more than willing to be the face of attempts at racial reconciliation for a party headed by a man who most Americans believe is racist.

Should Democrats distance themselves from 'defund the police'?

I think so. And they are -- although carefully, given the traction it's getting in some protests. In interviews this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) didn't say it's a bad idea, but she did say Congress wouldn't be dealing with it because it's up to localities. (Joe Biden did say he disagreed with it.) 

Top House Democrat James Clyburn, the highest-ranking black member in Congress, told our Washington Post colleagues that "defund the police" could hijack any effort for real change. "When you allow people to use incendiary terms, we create a climate within which we can’t get much done," he said. 

*I originally misstated Clyburn's party! Was moving fast. He's a Democrat.* 

How likely is that if Trump loses the 2020 election he will challenge the results or fabricate some excuse for not leaving office?

I think it's much more likely that he blames it on something outside his control rather than officially challenging it. Remember that in 2016 he basically set things up to that he could blame a loss on things like voter fraud -- and then he won. And then he promoted those things even after he won.

Did Joe Biden present any evidence for this statement?

His statement was based on how he believes the president is currently responding to efforts to make voting more accessible to as many Americans as possible and the president's lack of response to intelligence reports from that Russia is still attempting to interfere in the 2020 election.

There was an op-ed, I believe, by a few GOP strategists including George Conway talking about how they refuse to vote for Trump and of course they are also behind the Lincoln Project. Do you feel that this represents a real shift on the part of establishment GOPers or are they just very opposed to Trump, but will happily support other Republian candidates.

Last week, conservative columnist George Will called for Republicans to be voted out. He made a similar call-to-action ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.

However, the reality is that Trump still enjoys broad support among Republicans, even if it is not the 96 percent approval rating he recently tweeted. And elected Republicans know there is little upside to publicly criticizing Trump when they likely need voters who support him to support them if they hope to win reelection.

My colleague Amber Phillips wrote more about this dynamic earlier this week here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/09/whats-keeping-senate-republicans-ditching-trump/

Does it still actually say "the current administration" before the things they supposedly are against, or did they edit it to say previous administrations?

This refers to my piece this morning on how the 2016 GOP platform decries things that Trump has now done or been accused of doing.

To be clear, they will not be updating the platform to pretend it's a 2020 version, but are rather just leaving it as-is. But some of the thing they said a president should do haven't exactly been fulfilled over the last three-plus years.

Jim Clyburn says he will not let the banning chokehold issue stand in the way of working across the isle. Should he?

I think Clyburn realizes that if legislation to reform policing in America passes, it will require bipartisan support -- particularly in the Senate. That realization is likely going to move him and other Democratic lawmakers to attempt to find as many opportunities for bipartisanship as possible despite key areas of disagreement.

So "Defund the Police" doesn't mean "defund" in the sense of removing money. But it also doesn't mean "Reform the Police" as Representative Ilhan Omar made clear when she described the police as "rotten to the root" and that the Minneapolis department must be dismantled because previous reforms did not work. Does "Defund the Police" mean whatever anyone thinks it means?

Defund the police definitely means defund as in remove money from law enforcement and reallocate to other areas in a community that can do a better job of securing the public's safety.

If defunding the police doesn't mean defunding the police, why are people saying that? Seems like a gift to the GOP. And while we're at it, can we change social distancing to physical distancing? Is it really that hard for us to say what we mean?

Well, there are some groups in this movement that more closely align with the "defund" theory: Minneapolis's city council is moving to disband its troubled police department entirely, in favor of an as-yet-unspecified public safety organization. But even then, the city is still funding public safety.

So, yeah, defund the police is a politically problematic term. Others in the movement say "reallocate some policing money to social programs” is a better (less catchy) name.

I heard a Georgian official yesterday essentially blaming it on ignorant poll workers. The state did a GREAT job. Apparently.

The Post team covering this quoted  an election official in a county that had a lot of problems, Fulton, and I thought he made a good point that Georgia's secretary of state needs to take some responsibility for what happened and work with them to fix it for November: "He’s the head election official in the state, and he can’t wash his hands of all responsibility."

Where is he these days and what is he doing? He wasn't there for the walk to the church last week and his chairing of the coronavirus task force has been out of the news.

Vice President Pence was at the White House on the day of the church visit last week, but it is not clear why he was not there for the visit.  The Post reported on his absence at the time.

Late last week, Pence visited a mostly black church in Maryland.

Today, Pence is scheduled to lead the coronavirus task force meeting at the White House as he did on Tuesday, per his public schedule. He also was on a call with governors on Monday to discuss the coronavirus response.

Police (probably, could have been National Guard or others) were using so-called non-lethal ammunition - rubber bullets. A scan of my Twitter feed gave me multiple reports of people losing an eye after being hit with one, and I think at least one case of someone in critical condition after being hit in the forehead. So they're not dead, although I question if the one with brain damage is still alive, it's been several days since I read about it. They were aiming at people's heads! Does this not bother anyone in authority? If we're talking Trump, etc, I guess not. I mean, they don't care about the more than 100,000 people dead of COVID, so what's a few protesters?

This is an important point. Much of the conversation about police violence has centered on shooting deaths. But the truth is -- as we have seen this past week -- that not all violent acts from law enforcement lead to death. However, they can still be incredibly harmful and leave lifelong injuries that change people's quality of life. Efforts to address this reality are being made among advocates of reforming police.

Romney just said that he expects that Republicans will hold the Senate and that Trump will win the election. Does this sound like he'll be biding his time in the Senate until 2024?

I doubt he's making that calculation. He would be 77 years old on Election Day 2024. And yes, that's how old Biden is, but I'm not sure that antagonizing Trump will be a winning issue four year hence. I think the safer play is to subtly distance yourself  without erring too far in one direction or another -- something like what Ben Sasse has done.

Is this not just flushing money down the toilet? Who watches MSNBC and would be receptive to Trump's gaslighting ads?

I imagine that his team's research shows that there are enough people watching MSNBC who would be open to voting for Trump than many people believe. The ads seem designed to often dispel some of the biggest criticism of Trump on that network. His approach is to essentially offer a counter argument almost in real time with the hope that it will sway just enough members of the voting blocs that tend to lean blue to keep Biden from winning.

In what ways do you think trump will try and disrupt the Nov election and when he loses ( better happen) what crazy crap do you think or have any idea he will try to pull between Nov 3rd and Jan 20th?

So when Joe Biden says Trump "is going to try to steal this election," I'm not sure how or what he means.

One thing I have my eye on for potential confusion about which candidate actually won: Delayed results from voting by mail. Most states will still let people vote in person, and those results come in days or even weeks faster than people who vote by mail. So we could have a situation where one set of results shows one candidate in the lead, and then the final results flip that lead. 

That's something either side could exploit if they wanted to. Trump has already been willing to allege without evidence that vote by mail leads to widespread fraud. (It doesn't.) 

The outrage or protesting over the death of George Floyd seems unprecedented, and feels different than outrage over similar incidents. Why do you think this is happening now, not after Eric Garner? And is it different? If feels different, but at the same time I feel a strong pro-white backlash is imminent, and I'm concerned things will go back to the way the were before.

I wrote about this earlier for the Fix. The demographics of these protests are significantly different. Most of the marches that we've seen in the 50 states around the country are significantly whiter than they were five years ago. There are more conservatives speaking out against police violence and support for the Black Lives Matter movement is at an all time high. This is forcing top lawmakers to address police violence in a way that we have never seen in the past. This could lead to some changes at the federal and state level that were not likely just several years ago.

As far as a backlash, we've already seen that. Anytime efforts are made to dismantle white supremacy, there are those who pushback on these attempts. That is to be expected and will likely continue, if not increase.

Monmouth Poll: Satisfaction With Local Police Department: College Educated Whites 73%, Non-college White 70%, Black 72%, Hispanic/Asian 68%. Do you think AOC etc are overestimating how many Americans agree with their quest to defund the police?

If you look closely at polls, you will see that people routinely think there are problems in society, but that they don't necessarily apply to their own areas. I view this as an extension of that. The same goes for wanting Congress turned over but supporting their own members of Congress.

So what's their endgame? Flake just quit and Sasse mewls from the sidelines and votes along with Trump all the same. Who are their constituents supposed to be? That strategy is looking shaky for Collins and Tillis among many others.

Well, Jeff Flake decided to retire from Congress in 2018, and saying what he thinks about Trump on his way out the door.

Ben Sasse sometimes criticizes Trump, but he was a Never Trumper who ended up getting Trump's endorsement last year.

You're right that there just isn't a political home right now for Republicans who oppose Trump. As I wrote earlier this week, as difficult as life is now for Senate Republicans have to answer to all his controversies, there is very little advantage to being in no-man's land this election. By and large, Republicans have decided they'll sink or swim with Trump in November.

I've seen articles speculating about the Trump "dynasty" continuing with one or more of his odious offspring and floating Tom Cotton as a dictator-in-waiting but I don't see how any of them would hold the Trumpkin crowd's attention. Where's the sideshow appeal to any of these possibilities?

I actually think very often that Donald Trump Jr. does a better job of being Trump that the president himself. As a result, I do believe he has a future in Republican politics and I do see a future for him on Capitol Hill. I don't know if that means the White House, but certainly Congress.

Have you seen any references to All Lives Matter prior to the birth of the Black Lives Matter movement? It seems to me that ALM is insincerely altruistic and is an attempt to drown out BLM and distract people from the message. It’s a hostile response hiding behind altruism.

All Lives Matter -- along with Blue Lives Matter -- were created in response to the Black Lives Matter movement and to minimize, if not all out dismiss, the argument that black people were being disproportionately violently targeted by law enforcement.

The New York Times didn't appear to worry about offending when they published pieces by Nicolas Maduro, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Vladimir Putin and the Taliban. As for the piece by Senator Tom Cotton....the Times literally asked for it, published it and defended publishing it before reversing the position and having the editorial page editor resign. Does this make the Times look as if it is a mouthpiece for Democrats?

Well, it was New York Times staffers who opposed running the editorial, not for political reasons but because they feared it would put staffers covering the protests in danger, particularly black journalists. 

I think where the Times failed editorially was on editing the opinion piece. Part of Cotton's reasoning to "send in the troops" was that that protesters were antifa. Well, there's no evidence of that. If he can't back up his viewpoint with facts, then running the op-ed becomes an issue.

I believe this is called foreshadowing. At first I laughed at Trump demanding an apology and retraction from CNN for its poll showing him 14 points behind. Then it made me think. If this is how he reacts to a mere poll, what would he do if he loses the election. Does this concern you, as it does me, that it shows that he simply won’t accept a defeat in November?

1. I think the 14-point lead is something of an outlier, If I'm honest. Others have shown a closer race.

2. Making a logical argument against the sample sizes in polls is more easy than making a logical argument against actual votes. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be attempted, but it's easier to plausibly argue a faulty sample than to prove voter fraud, which is rare and hasn't been proven to happen to any extensive degree -- including by Trump's voter fraud commission.

Are there groups working to register voters in swing states, and then help them get mail in ballots in November? I realize that Repubs in many states will do anything and everything to keep certain groups from voting. It's not like this is a "new" situation, but from what happened in GA this week there is obviously much more to be done.

There is and more are being formed! The Post had a story today about Lebron James launching a organization hoping to turn out the vote. The details have not been fully publicized yet but many of the groups that the basketball player hopes will show up in increased numbers are well represented in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Arizona.

Hi Everyone -- thanks for taking questions on another busy news day (is there ever anything but?). Any wagers on what the general's future is working for a president who never apologizes for anything? How do you expect the WH to respond? At the very least Trump has to be furious that he's lost a news cycle to someone within his own administration.

Hi there! I'm actually a bit surprised that Defense Secretary Mark Esper is still in the job after disagreeing with Trump on sending in the troops into cities. But filling his job with a not-acting director would require Senate confirmation, which is time consuming and difficult.

The same is true for Milley, who just apologized for being part of that church photo opp and appearing to militarize it. He's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Trump would need Congress's approval for the next job. Maybe it's more trouble than it's worth for Trump to replace these military leaders?

Thoughts on his statement this morning? What might we expect in terms of fallout from the WH?

It's truly remarkable how much military and Pentagon people in Trump's administration have rebuked the photo op and those involved have sought to distance themselves from it. It makes it very difficult for Trump to argue this wasn't intended for political gain.

It's also a reminder that the military prides itself on its independence and how much that independence matters when it comes to those who serve beneath those leaders.

Do you think a landslide loss by Trump would prevent him from claiming he actually won? Or would he be just as likely or more likely to contest it because he just couldn't fathom that he could lose by a landslide and then claim that it therefore MUST be a dubious result?

I'm not as bullish as Biden is on the notion that Trump won't leave office if he loses.

But to play along with your question, Trump has already alleged mail voting leads to fraud by the thousands in states (again, that's false). So he could use that logic to argue massive fraud if he lost by a lot. 

To play hypothetical here, what is your sense of the appetite/likelihood for the Dems ending the legislative filibuster should they retake the Senate this fall? (Assuming Biden wins as well.) Much of the broader Dem agenda goes way beyond the spending-specific things you can do via reconciliation. As a center-left Democrat myself, my concern is that there are still way too many "institutionalists" - including Biden - who think that deals with McConnell & co. are somehow possible in this reality.

The Post asked 2020 Democratic presidential candidates whether they would be open to eliminating the filibuster if Democrats took control of the Senate. Joe Biden said he opposed eliminating it.

Amber also wrote about this last year. In short, I concur with her that it seems unlikely at this point that Democrats would completely eliminate the filibuster given Senate Democrats remain split on the issue, but a lot can change between now and next year if they re-take the chamber.

What will they do for races in Georgia and Mississippi where the state flags still have he stars and bars on them?

I don't know what NASCAR's policy on that will be, but Mississippi is debating replacing its flag this week, so depending on the outcome and timing of that, that would solve that particularly quandary.

Thanks for tuning in. See you all next week! 

In This Chat
Amber Phillips
Amber Phillips writes about politics for The Fix. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from Boston and Taiwan.
Aaron Blake
Aaron Blake is senior political reporter for The Fix. A Minnesota native, he has also written about politics for the Minneapolis Star Tribune and The Hill newspaper.
Eugene Scott
Eugene Scott writes about identity politics for The Fix. He was recently a fellow at the Georgetown University Institute of Politics. And prior to joining the Post, he was a breaking news reporter at CNN Politics.
JM Rieger
JM Rieger is the video editor for The Fix, covering national politics. He joined The Washington Post in 2018. Previously, Rieger worked as a video producer covering national politics for HuffPost. He began his career as a video editor covering Congress for Roll Call.
Natalie Jennings
Natalie Jennings is editor of The Fix. She has been at The Washington Post since 2010 and was previously a senior producer for Post Video.
Recent Chats
  • Next: