They took it seriously enough to change candidates. But again: why is a "just okay" candidate from the Democratic Party not better than a "threat to the free world" candidate from the Republican Party? The double-standard is absurd.

I thought Hillary failing was a clear indictment that America is not ready for a woman to be president. I hate that it’s true, but too much of the American heartland is conservative and plenty of them vote against their own interest (see: abortion contention). To then go ahead with a woman of color, and then have celebrity endorsements that don’t do anything to increase voter turnout shows how out of touch with reality the DNC really is. What a shame, and it doesn’t help that Kamala never had mass appeal. Pete Buttegieg would have been a far better bet, personally speaking.

You think America's not ready for a woman, but it's ready for a gay man?

My understanding from talking to people in states like Indiana and Texas, a good chunk of them don't believe in a woman's ability to lead. If the DNC really wanted to progressive then a gay man is a safer bet than a woman of color just because of how many people in this country are racist / sexist. The safest bet would have been a straight white man that's charismatic and likeable but there's nobody. Gavin Newsom wouldn't have stood a chance either. The party is in dire straits when it comes to representing America.

There was a talking head comment last night.

"The Harris campaign told us today that they are 'nauseatingly confident'. I don't know that I've ever heard nausea as a positive thing."

The DNC are too much in their own bubble.

Yeah, it's bizarre to watch the DNC on the one hand claim that Donald Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime threat to democracy and freedom and on the other hand fail to offer anything to "undecided" voters that might get them to vote Democrat.

My takeaway is that I don't think they actually believe Donald Trump is uniquely bad - it's just messaging.

The only thing worse would be twice-in-a-lifetime ;)