The initial post debate-debacle frenzy has worn off, and with the passage of time there seems to be a growing realization that this crisis of the political establishment may not be susceptible of any easy solution.
The Babylon Bee @TheBabylonBee
'Who’s A Good Boy? Huh? Who’s A Good Boy?’ Says Jill Biden Congratulating Biden With A Treat https://buff.ly/3RJi2Yc
The problem is that constitutional and legal niceties will have to be dealt with—when push comes to shove those can’t be ignored. As others have observed, while scheduling the super early debate date had all the appearances of a final trial run for Zhou, the Dems may have cooked their own goose by rigging the primaries for Zhou. There may be no palatable off ramp within the law. There is this possibility:
The Babylon Bee @TheBabylonBee
Democrats Ask Kristi Noem To Take Biden Out Behind White House Shed https://buff.ly/3znXi1E
Or this:
But short of those drastic alternatives …
There are GOPers who are hedging their bets, scarcely able to believe their good fortune:
But it may all be too late. Yesterday we noted that there could be campaign finance laws that would block the $195 million Zhou’s campaign has raised from going to anyone but the totally unacceptable Kama Sutra. That’s a LOT of money to walk away from. Now it turns out that it could prove impossible to replace Zhou on the ballot in three crucial swing states.
The Heritage Oversight Project has identified three swing states – Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin – where they believe removing Biden from the Democratic ticket would prevent anyone else from replacing him.
Woops!
I can’t say how all that plays out, but it suggests that any move to oust Zhou will be some time in the preparation, and time is not on the Dems’ side at this point. In the meantime, here’s some post debacle potpourri to consider:
Michael Tracey:
People think because Biden is personally diminished, that must mean he doesn't control the Dem Party Machinery. They don't grasp the structure of party machinery in the US. You don't have to be at peak cognition to occupy that role. You just issue directives through underlings
The only real plausible scenario for a "divine intervention" was if the Big Kahunas of the Democratic Party put on a united front and convinced Joe to Go for the good of the nation. That does not appear to be happening. Biden is still the nominee, barring some drastic development
Conundrum for Democrats: if Biden is too mentally incompetent to run for re-election, how is he mentally competent RIGHT NOW to govern the country? Should they call for him to withdraw his candidacy on age-related competency grounds, it would make no logical sense for them to also not call on him to resign the presidency.
But of course that would install Kamala Harris, who is perhaps even more politically radioactive. (Although that might be a tossup at this point.) Biden resigning on the grounds of mental infirmity would bog down ANY subsequent Democratic nominee, be a huge liability they have to answer for, and undercut the argument that Trump is the real chaos agent.
In short, Democrats have no "good" options right now. They shot themselves in the foot when they decided to preemptively neuter any potential 2024 Democratic Primary process ...
Biden's inner-most "inner circle" (Mike Donilon, Ted Kaufman, Ron Klain) consists of people who by and large only have proximity to political power through their relationship with Biden. By counseling Joe to Go, they would be disempowering themselves. Newsom would bring in his own crew from Sacramento or wherever. Same for the other potential replacements. Not that these inner-circle guys would be out on the street if Joe bowed out, but they would no longer have privileged access to the highest echelons of political and state power. That's intoxicating for anybody. So, throw that in as another incentive that militates against the idea of Biden being pressured into withdrawal
Interesting signs of disarray:
Alexander S. Vindman @AVindman
Jun 27
What did Trump do during his four years to end the Russia-Ukraine war? Nothing. Trump is full of shit.
Hans Mahncke @HansMahncke
Remarkable that they're now admitting that the Ukraine war started in 2014 when Joe Biden greenlighted the Maidan coup.
So let's unpack that just a bit more. Vindman admits what we all know, that Zhou—the Ukraine guy for the Deep State during the Obama years—started the war in 2014. Trump became president in 2016--despite the Russia Hoax which was clearly designed to prevent Trump from patching up US - Russia relations. Then Trump was hoax-impeached twice, based again mostly on fears that he would somehow slow down the march to war with Russia. That’s a nice narrative framework for explaining what’s been going on at home and abroad for lo these 10 years or more. It tells you how much the war on Russia mattered to some people.
Contrasting views:
Hans Mahncke @HansMahncke
The reason the media is having a meltdown isn't that Biden is senile. They already knew that. It's that Trump was on top of his game. Had he argued, interrupted and babbled, they'd have called it a draw. But Trump was disciplined and focused. That's what they're panicking about.
Aaron Maté @aaronjmate
On foreign policy, Biden and Trump compete to show who is more of an unhinged neocon. Trump has no critique of Biden's warmongering, only that Biden hasn't been bellicose enough. Biden is just incoherent.
In fairness to Trump's chosen way of communicating, he appears to be signaling an end to the war on Russia—perhaps at the urging of key supporters like David Sacks. The question is, Do we believe Trump can follow through on that signaling? After all, he continues to monger genocide in unhinged fashion. Further, as a practical matter, where will Trump find a NatSec team to end our war on Russia while at the same time fomenting wider war in the Middle East—which Trump appears to be rabidly in favor of? (More on that later.) Again, taking Trump at his word on starting wars is probably a stretch. However, pulling off the trick of navigating the mess the Anglo-Zionists have landed America in will require a president who is in full control and has a fairly nuanced understanding of the issues.
A Libertarian reaction—hard to disagree, taking them at their words:
Daniel McAdams @DanielLMcAdams
OMG this is a train wreck! Two local drunks understand the world better than these two. This debate sucks. Not even entertaining.
And Neocon Steyn does ask the important question:
Mark Steyn @MarkSteynOnline 
Is the Democrat-Deep State-Big Tech complex willing to permit a free and fair election that Trump could win?
The answer to that remains: No.
My belief is that Steyn is right on this score—the Deep State simply doesn’t believe they can trust Trump not to tear down the Anglo-Zionist imperial strategy and policy that has been decades in the building up process. OTOH, pulling off a fake election may be quite a bit harder this time around—even with 10 million illegals in their back pocket.
Buckle up!
My current hypothesis after reading a few commentaries:
1. Biden brain trust did not think Trump would accept an unfair debate on a biased network with used anchors and questions provided prior to Biden. As well as biased questions. Biden needed the bump from Trump declining the debate due to his polls.
2. Trump accepted shocking the Biden Brain trust.
3. New hope was trigger Trump and get under his skin by having moderators and Biden mentionhis convictions, crazy lady rape accusations, Stormy Daniels, Jan 6, convicted felon, ex President, etc by Biden and moderators. Goal was a repeat of Trumps first debate with Biden, x10.
The Biden brain trust exists in an echo chamber, and believed their own propaganda that Trump was a hot head with no self control. Trump would have the most epic melt down ever. What could go wrong?
4. Unbelievable Trump kept his cool under relentless attacks, and just grinned and bore it. He did not overreact, but stayed on message. Trump minimized attacks against Biden, making him appear Presidential. Biden on the other hand had a few glitches, while Trump kept his cool.
via NYPost
Octogenarian President Biden has difficulty functioning outside a six-hour window of daylight, according to an alarming new report. The 81-year-old commander in chief is prone to absent-minded gaffes and fatigue outside of the hours of 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. or while traveling abroad, White House aides told Axios in a bizarre attempt to spin his disastrous debate performance. During the 90-minute trainwreck of a presidential debate — which kicked off five hours after the president’s peak performance window, at 9 p.m. — Biden often appeared vacant or slack-jawed, and on several occasions froze mid-thought, misspoke, or struggled to form...