Harris and the rest of the Democrats were and are way too dismissive of real economic issues; there's examples in this very thread of them still doing the whole "Ignore the voters: the economy is actually the best it's ever been, and here's why: (1/942)" charade.

I'm genuinely unsure if this incompetence is on purpose or on accident - do they actually believe that the average American is doing really well because they're just in delusional bubbles of rich friends, or are they knowingly trying to sell a false image to try and convince people in lieu of - gasp - doing something that doesn't benefit the top 0.01% for the first time in ~250 years? Regardless, I think that a Democrat who ran on solving genuine economic issues and disconnected from Biden's terrible management could have won. But such a figure would never have been tolerated in the election. In fact, I think they'd be Corbyn'd and they'd just tank their own campaign to ensure that the Republicans win, so in that sense, Bernie also would not have won in this environment.

So in that sense, saying "any democrat running nationally in this environment was just fucked no matter what" is correct, but not on their own merits, but because somebody who could win would not be allowed to win. The Venn diagram is two separated circles.