Biden Cracks Open the Door

Plus: More from the focus groups and an update on Gaza.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi reportedly urged other congressional Democrats to share their concerns about President Joe Biden’s ability to win in November privately with the White House or Biden campaign, or at least to wait until after the end of the NATO summit to make public statements. Well, the NATO summit concluded yesterday, and already two more House Democrats, Jim Himes and Eric Sorensen, have called for Biden to step aside, bringing the total to seventeen.

Meanwhile, the New York Times and MSNBC have both reported that the Biden campaign has started testing Vice President Kamala Harris’s polling against Donald Trump. Happy Friday.

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Deep Down, Biden Knows

Watching President Biden’s press conference last night, I thought: Joe Biden knows. He knows at some level that he shouldn’t be running again.

That level is still subterranean. He’s still in denial. He can’t really even acknowledge to himself yet that he should step aside, let alone say it, or act on it.

But he knows. He knows that he’s very unlikely to win, and he knows, I think, that he’s not up to governing for four more years.

He does believe, as he argued last night, that he’s governed well, and that he can still govern well enough for the next six months. He’s right about that.

But Biden never really argued last night that he can govern for the next four years. Nor could an honest observer watch the press conference and conclude that he was up to the task.

And Biden never really tried to lay out much of a second term agenda. Rather, he said, he was committed to finishing the job: “Anyway, I’m going to be going around making the case of the things that I think we have to finish and how we can’t afford to lose what we’ve done.”

But of course there are others who can protect what Biden has accomplished, and finish—or better, continue—the job he’s started. That’s what successors do. Life is full of occasions when successors take up the jobs their predecessors began. So is politics. George Washington’s achievement was carried forward by his successors. So was Franklin Roosevelt’s. So was John Kennedy’s. So was Ronald Reagan’s.

Of course, to finish a job, you need to have that job. In this case, you need to win in November. To build on what Biden has begun, a Democrat will need to defeat Donald Trump.

Joe Biden more or less acknowledged last night that doing so will be a challenge for him.

I’m determined on running. But I think it’s important that I real—I allay fears. I’ve seen—let them see me out there, let me see them out, you know—for the longest time, it was, you know, ‘Biden’s not prepared to sit with us unscripted; Biden is not prepared to’—and anyway.

I’m not sure that statement really allayed fears. But what’s notable is that Biden acknowledged that it’s important for him to do so. And it’s hard to claim that he’s done so in the two weeks since the debate.

But what about the fact Biden did mention last night—that his campaign had an infrastructure that would be “awful hard to replace in the near term”? “It’s awful hard to start from scratch.”

Unconvincing. Biden’s successor wouldn’t be starting from scratch. Most of the Biden campaign apparatus isn’t Biden-specific. It’s available to any Democratic successor who would inherit it.

Biden also conceded last night that a successor candidate could beat Trump. “I believe I’m the best qualified to govern and I think I’m the best qualified to win, but there are other people who could beat Trump, too.”

In the wake of reports that Biden’s own campaign was doing polls testing Kamala Harris against Trump, Biden was asked, what if she did better than Biden (as she has in a couple of public polls)? Not enough, Biden said. He claimed he’d only step aside if “they came back and said there’s no way you can win.”

But obviously it’s never the case that there’s “no way” one can win. But it could well be the case that there’s little chance you could win. And polling would show that, and could well show a successor would have a better chance.

The fact that Biden was even talking about having his mind changed by polling data is itself striking. Last week he’d said the only thing that could get him out of the race was if the Lord Almighty told him to do so. But now—by Biden’s own account—we’re in a world of polling rather than praying, of human judgment rather than divine revelation.

So the door has been cracked open.

Meanwhile, CNN reported yesterday that

Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi have spoken privately about Joe Biden and the future of his 2024 campaign. Both the former president and ex-speaker expressed concerns about how much harder they think it’s become for the president to beat Donald Trump. Neither is quite sure what to do.

Neither Obama nor Pelosi contested the report. Indeed, Pelosi’s office confirmed they’d spoken.

So Obama’s talking to Pelosi. The campaign is doing polls of other candidates. Biden is acknowledging he has to “allay fears.”

We don’t need divine intervention for Joe Biden to step aside. The door’s been cracked open. What we do need is sustained efforts, both private and public, to persuade and, yes, to pressure Joe Biden to open the door wide—and to walk through it.

—William Kristol

In the comments yesterday, there was a really interesting discussion about how to make our news media better, more civic-minded, less in thrall to the attention economy. It’s no coincidence that this conversation was among Bulwark+ members (who can comment on Morning Shots). At The Bulwark, we’re building the kind of media we think the country needs. We’re not on Team Red or Team Blue—and we’re not in it to become billionaires. We’re in it for democracy. We’d love to have you aboard.

Biden Didn’t Quiet Democrats’ Concerns

Despite Joe Biden’s early stumbles—calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “President Putin” and Vice President Kamala Harris “Vice President Trump”—Thursday’s press conference was not a campaign-ending catastrophe, much like the interview the president gave last week to George Stephanopoulos. Biden proved he still had good information rattling around his head somewhere, but the delivery was severely off-putting.

In other words, it wasn’t enough to quiet the concerns about his capability of beating Trump and being president for another four years.

I had a repeat participant in one of my focus groups this week—Bryan from Pennsylvania. He was in our group of Trump-to-Biden voters the day after the State of the Union address, and remarked on how Biden’s speech had featured “flowing improv.” Other participants in that March focus group shared Bryan’s relief about Biden’s competence.

Bryan was representative of the kind of voter who, while not a progressive, was looking for a safe place to park a vote against Trump. State-of-the-Union Biden gave it to him.

But after talking to Bryan again this week, it was clear that Biden’s debate performance had vitiated his confidence in the president. He recalled asking himself within the first two minutes of the debate, “Oh my God, what is this?” He later concluded, “This guy can’t make it to November.”

But it wasn’t just the debate that gave him pause. He had watched the George Stephanopoulos interview as well, and called it “too little, too late.”

“We know you’re not all there,” he said. “I saw behind the veil.”

Democrats can ask voters to vote for a flawed, old man over an insurrectionist. But they can’t with a straight face expect voters to feel good about it.

“We all can see that he’s not cognitively there, especially for four more years,” another voter said. “My God, I don’t know if he can do four more months.”

—Sarah Longwell

The comments have been lively this week. That’s good! Keep sharing your ideas. The whole point of The Bulwark is to talk openly, honestly, and in good faith with each other about our country and its problems. Disagreement is good. Let’s all be the kind of citizens we think everyone should be.

Can Gaza Catch a Break?

After nine months, there seems to be a small opening to secure a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. Although the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are on the verge a battlefield victory in Rafah, the mood in Israel has soured on the war. According to a recent poll, 56 percent of Israelis support a hostage deal, indicating Israelis' lack of faith in the prospects of victory.

Pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has been mounting since Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot left the war cabinet in early June. Meanwhile, rumblings inside Netanyahu’s Likud Party have intensified. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s recent trip to D.C. likely exacerbated his simmering feud with Netanyahu, as did Gallant’s call for a state inquiryinto the October 7th attack, which he knows would likely hurt Netanyahu politically, since Bibi has yet to take personal accountability for not preventing the pogrom.

The three-phased deal would reportedly begin with a six-week ceasefire, during which Hamas would release the remaining female hostages and all wounded hostages. Israel, in turn, would partially withdraw its forces from Gaza and release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, who would almost certainly swell Hamas’s ranks in the West Bank.

In the second phase of the deal, a new interim government will take the helm. Hamas is reportedly open to pulling back its forces to make way for a 2500-strong, U.S.-trained security force under the Palestinian Authority. In the third phase of the deal, a multi-year reconstruction plan will pump billions into the war-ravaged territory.

The deal's first phase is viable, which by itself is a small victory for the Biden administration. Israel could use a break to rearm, refit, and refocus on Hezbollah. Hamas could also use a time to reorganize their fractured fighting force, which is a shadow of its former self.

Phase II of the deal faces more serious obstacles. The proposed Gaza security force is far too small, even with backing from the Gulf Arab states. It would face intense pressure from Hamas, which fields experienced operatives who have survived nine months of grueling combat with the region’s best military.

It’s also hard to fathom Hamas leader Yahya Shinwar voluntarily relinquishing control of Gaza under any circumstances. It would mean giving up the holy war to which he has committed his life, and signing a permanent ceasefire with the Jews that did not explicitly end the war with Hamas in power would wreck the group’s stature in the jihadist world would.

On the other side, Netanyahu’s ruling coalition would likely disintegrate if he were to empower the PA by signing such a deal. Netanyahu signaled his reservation by publishing a list of cease-fire principles.

All of those problems are difficult, and the window for a deal appears short with the U.S. presidential election in full swing.

The most likely outcome is that there’s no long-term solution to the war, but a six-week ceasefire gives everyone a chance to catch their breath—especially the innocent Gazans trapped in a horrifying war.

—Will Selber

---

Catching Up . . .

• Rescued Hostage Describes Months of Uncertainty and Terror in Gaza: New York Times

• Economists Say Inflation Would Be Worse Under Trump Than Biden: Wall Street Journal

• China views America’s presidential nightmare with mirth—and disquiet: Economist

• Why AOC and other ‘Squad’ members are now defending Joe Biden: Financial Times

• Man plotted electrical substation attack to advance white supremacist views, prosecutors say: Politico

---

Quick Hits

In MAGAville, Marc Caputo reports that for the first time ever, Trump is—and we cannot believe we are using this phrase to describe him—sitting pretty:

The past nine years have yielded countless reports of Trump pivoting or becoming more disciplined and politically astute. Most of them haven’t aged well.

But what’s different now, his advisers insist, is that he can actually—and accurately—argue he’s winning. He never led Biden in 2020 polls. In 2016, Clinton was ahead of Trump at this point in the campaign.

Trump also has the added motivation of having lost the presidency, even if he won’t admit it was legitimate.

“He’s had four years to think about this moment, and he’s not gonna screw it up,” said one adviser.

But it’s not just a thirst for redemption driving Trump. In candid moments, he has acknowledged to others that he knows he has to win the presidency because it’s the only way to shut down the Department of Justice’s criminal cases against him in Washington and in South Florida. That is, Trump believes if he doesn’t win the White House, he could wind up in the Big House. And he has adjusted accordingly.

Peter Meilaender reviews Robert Kagan’s latest book, Rebellion: How Antiliberalism Is Tearing America Apart—Again, and along the way has some deep insights into both American liberalism and American conservatism:

Kagan’s motivation for describing this American antiliberal tradition—note, incidentally, the choice of label, not “illiberal” (i.e., merely not liberal), as one might have expected, but “antiliberal,” motivated by hostility toward liberalism—is clear enough. A vocal critic of Donald Trump and the Republican party he has remade in his image, Kagan is horrified at the prospect of a possible second Trump presidency. This is clear from his very first page, where he writes, “The presidential election of 2024 . . . is a referendum on whether the liberal democracy born out of the Revolution should continue.” Trump is the leader of those “tens of millions of Americans [who] have risen in rebellion against that system.” The book ends where it began, repeating on the final page that “2024 is the year when the antiliberals hope to overthrow the system.”

I share Kagan’s alarm at the thought that Trump might return to the White House, and I approve his desire to highlight the authoritarian impulses of Trumpism. These worthy motives and his zeal for the cause, however, lead Kagan astray. Rebellion rests upon an inappropriately narrow conception of liberalism; it does so in order to highlight a questionable “tradition” of antiliberalism; and as a result it distorts modern American conservatism.

---

Cheap Shots