From what I’ve seen so far, the GOP ads plan to emphasize a lot more than Biden’s cognitive problems. His policies, for example, and those of the Democrats in general. I don’t think they’re putting all of their eggs in the “Biden is senile” basket.

Option 1: Biden overperforms, making only a few stumbles that can be written off; and, simultaneously, Trump wanders off-message in ways that turn off suburban women.

Option 2: Biden comes across as sufficiently-confused to make moderates seriously concerned about his mental competence (and Trump has a better-than-average night).

If Option 1 happens, the excess stress that Trump supporters have placed on Biden’s dementia will backfire: For the rest of the campaign, he will be bulletproof on the topic of mental competence, and if a Trump supporter raises the topic, they’ll be told, “Ah, nobody’s worried about that any more. Didn’t you watch the debate? That issue has been put to bed.” Trump supporters will have gained nothing, and will have lost the opportunity to stress some other Biden weakness.

If Option 2 happens, expect the Dems to pull a Robert Torricelli Maneuver.

What To Do
Either way, Trump’s supporters should stop wasting time trying to paint Biden as cognitively-disintegrated.

First, it has the effect of lowering expectations at the debate: And in presidential debates, the person who “wins’ isn’t the person who wins but the person who exceeds expectations.

Second, it only works if Biden does something in public that obviously and undeniably proves he’s mentally unfit. BUT…if it happens, it’ll happen whether or not the pro-Trump crowd continues to push the issue. If it happens, great! …but if not, any time spent emphasizing it is wasted time. Stop waiting for Godot! Better to move to other issues (like the difference between violent SJW chaos where Dems govern vs. economic prosperity and orderly society where the GOP does) so that, if the mental competence issue fizzles, there’s another issue already in play.

Third, if it happens, the Dems will just replace Biden. Trump will then have a very short time to persuade the public that the new candidate is bad, for some reason other than mental incompetence (unless they replace him with Maxine Waters).

Better, therefore, to paint Democrats, full stop, as dangerous panderers to violent neo-Marxists. That issue will play regardless.

That the culture of the Democratic electorate stinks. If you look at the competitive candidates in Democratic nomination donnybrooks, you’ll generally notice a dearth of people with executive experience and a dearth of people with an occupational life outside of politics. This year, they did better than usual. Note, though, that their best entry was a 38 year old small city mayor whose biography contains not one element that isn’t contrived and whose performance in the mayor’s chair was mediocre. Last time, they had Bernie Sanders (who, unlike Booty-gag, was a seminal figure in Burlington politics) and Hellary, i.e. a not-really-quondam Trotskyist (whose life before politics is an embarrassment) and a crook whose entire legal career was derived from being married to a politician (recall she was fired for cause from her first law job before the ink was dry on her diploma; her supervisor of the time said she was one of just three lawyers he’d ever employed for whom he’d never give a reference). In 2008, they gave us three lawyers without executive experience, two of them crooks and a third a dilettante. In 2004, you had two experienced executives who had satisfactory non-political careers; both lost to a low-rent lawyer; one of the two thought it professionally beneficial to him to behave like a raving lunatic. Prior to that, you had a pair of wonks without executive experience, one of whom was in the middle stages of secular characterological decay; the other might be your model of a non-executive candidate, however. In 1992, they had three experienced executives and a fourth candidate who had some original ideas. Of these, one had prospered in business before going into politics. Rank-order these guys according to quality, and they chose number 4, a man who had spent minimal time outside the world of politics and who was manifestly corrupt.

Prior to 1990, you could argue the Democratic nominees were the best of the field, or at least of that portion of the field that could attract the attention of the voters. Michael Dukakis and Jimmy Carter were experienced executives and you could argue the same of Walter Mondale. Electoral politics was Jimmy Carter’s 3d career. If they overpromised and underdelivered on that front, they were still ethically head-and-shoulders above what came after. No one they ran against was indisputably better and a few were indisputably worse (Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, George Wallace, Frank Church).

What does it say that in a field featuring Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, seven U.S. sitting Senators, three sitting Governors, the mayor of New York City, and two billionaires that BIDEN is who they desperately had to drag across the finish line?

Technically, they all take dictation and orders from the Bilderberg meetings they tend to have. The kind of “journolist” type shenanigans. And Trilateral Commission plus what’s that other name, Council on Foreign Relations.

but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Ah, but you don’t have to. You just have to fool enough of the people enough of the time.

Then there’s Fooling Ymar, which is something in the Divine realm of difficulty.

But then the more astute dems realize that beating Trump in the electoral college is at best, a long shot. Whereas, holding on to the House majority and gaining a few more Senate seats may well be possible. Preventing Trump from placing another real conservative on the S.C. has to be the dems highest priority. Trump becoming a lame duck President from day one of his second term is the only way to achieve that goal.