Even if the candidates already have a private unity strategy, waiting still poses a risk because campaigns continue to move while the plan remains invisible.

The Cost of Waiting argues that delay is not neutral. In several institutional examples, leaders saw warning signs early but treated them as temporary or manageable. By the time action came, the environment had already adapted to the problem. The cost was not just the delay itself, but the loss of flexibility and the narrowing of available choices.

Before the Vote applies this idea directly to campaigns. It explains that campaigns reveal their condition before Election Day through signals like coalition discipline, endorsements, donor behavior, and timing decisions. A campaign under pressure is judged not only by its final outcome, but by how quickly it responds to visible structural problems.

That framework fits FL-20 closely. Public reporting had already raised concerns about a split Black vote before the race fully hardened. Local Black leaders warned against Debbie Wasserman Schultz entering the race, and discussions about consolidation reportedly circulated early. But publicly, no unified candidate emerged.

That matters because voters, donors, and institutions react to what they can see, not to private strategy discussions. If fragmentation remains visible for too long, supporters begin choosing sides, donors hesitate, and media narratives settle around division rather than coordination.

A late unity announcement could still happen, but by then the race may already be structurally hardened. What might have looked strategic earlier can later appear reactive.

The issue is not whether there is a plan. The issue is whether the plan becomes visible before the campaign loses the ability to shape the race on its own terms.