Can Biden secure enough of a team without announcing?

[WeekiWater]

I see huge benefits in Biden holding off until April or May. He is clearly staying relevant in the discussions, will bring in serious money once he announces, and is benefiting from running without running. He has the appearance of running, is being polled as the front runner, and isn't being questioned about policy or vetted.

Two negatives. Can he secure the best team possible if he promises people positions behind the scene? Money? But with his name recognition and the length of the primary season I think he will be ok holding off for a bit.

I don't want Biden to run. I would not vote for him in the primary. I do see how strong he is and think he might hold that strength by sitting on the outside for two or three more months. This is one heck of a long primary season. I don't think Clinton announced until April.

[still_one]

1. If Sanders wasn't running, I would agree with you, I wouldn't want him to run, but since Bernie has

decided to run, I definitely want Biden in the race. He has the most experience, both domestically and internationally of any of the candidates so far.

As to your question about can he secure the best team possible? There is no doubt in my mind that team has been assembled months ago for the most part

[WeekiWater]

2. I'm kind of in agreement with your second paragraph.

Though it is just speculation on my part. If true, I don't see why he wouldn't hold off on announcing for some time.

[still_one]

3. Strategically I agree with you on that. It serves him well. Let the other announced candidates

face the slings and arrows, and make mistakes, and then come in after analyzing the competition.

One thing I do believe, if our nominee is a man, and he doesn't select a women VP, ideally one of the candidates running, I think there will be hell to pay, and have very negative consequences for us in 2020

[WeekiWater]

4. I know some won't like this, and I think it is fair not to like it,

but my primary vote will be going to a woman. It is a current criteria I have. There have been over forty Presidents and not one has been a woman. Truly unjust.

[still_one]

5. Why not. It is a fair statement, and it is about time. Right now I am 70% sure I will be voting

for Kamala Harris in the California Primary, but since it is still a year away, a lot of things can change

[WeekiWater]

6. Lots and lots of time.

As of right now, if Warren doesn't gain much traction, I see myself going to Harris.

[emulatorloo]

7. Totally understand you wanting to vote for a woman in the primary.