Biden was a stop-gap measure as Democrats didn't risk to put any new emerging leader against Trump. I think it was a big mistake - basically "coronation" of Biden back then replaced the normal, though painful, democratic process of producing a new Democrats leader. And as a result, it seems to me that Biden like a huge tree in the forest only exacerbated the issue by not letting new leadership to grow in the last 4 years. Of course he didn't do it intentionally, he (and his entourage) just naturally sucked up all the air and nothing grew in his shadow. Now, with the "anointment" of Harris, Democrats are repeating that mistake for the 3rd time - ie. Hillary, Biden, Harris - while on the other side we have a "Viking" leader who bloody slaughtered and ate all the competitors who were in that Republican jar (compare that to "Biden campaign chair to staff: Time to elevate Kamala Harris" - leaders aren't elevated by some bureaucrats, leaders arise and elevate themselves)
(To clarify my political position, i'm pro-Democrat and think Biden wasn't a bad president, though i think he completely dropped the ball on the foreign policy - while Ukraine and Israel are more prominent, they cause multipage flamewars, so instead i'd point to Houthis where i think majority can agree with me that what Houtis do in Red Sea is just plain war crimes (intentional attacks on civilian shipping) and that should have been immediately nipped in the bud by the overwhelming US and allies' force in the region - if anything, protection of civilian shipping is one of the most legitimate major uses of the Navy, and i'd say it is a direct duty of the president to put it to such a use when the need arises)
(To clarify my political position, i'm pro-Democrat and think Biden wasn't a bad president, though i think he completely dropped the ball on the foreign policy - while Ukraine and Israel are more prominent, they cause multipage flamewars, so instead i'd point to Houthis where i think majority can agree with me that what Houtis do in Red Sea is just plain war crimes (intentional attacks on civilian shipping) and that should have been immediately nipped in the bud by the overwhelming US and allies' force in the region - if anything, protection of civilian shipping is one of the most legitimate major uses of the Navy, and i'd say it is a direct duty of the president to put it to such a use when the need arises)