[theDentist]

I doubt 43 will lose. Secondly, spending money now will only leave less in the coffers when it's really needed.
Let the Dems spend their money firing shots at each other (as well as the Pres). At this point and time in the last 5 Presidencies all were at the same basic poll levels.

[Enterprise]

I hope you are right here. Why spend money now on minor matters. Wait until next year and spend the huge amount that has been raised and steamroll the nutcase party.

[familyofman]

"At this point and time in the last 5 Presidencies all were at the same basic poll levels."

That is no reason to assume the next outcome will be the same (on average) as those 5 previous elections. It's far too dangerous trying to drive forward while looking in the rear view mirror - the last 5 turns were left, therefor the next turn must be left. We should learn from the past without becoming too sure of it's predictive value of the future.

[cwb]

Yeah...but as Morris has pointed out, most of those others (Reagan, Clinton) were on the way up. It's a little more tenuous when you're on the way down...and Bush has been in a steady decline for a couple months now.

[Catspaw]

Why bother spending the money now on President Bush? He doesn't have a primary opponent, he's on the tube every day due to the power of the presidency and everybody knows his name.

When it's time--probably late spring of next year--they can start spending the money. And they WILL spend it.

[RightWhale]

This problem with the CIA leak is BIG. Unless it is resolved immediately, there will be somebody else in the White House after '04. Do the Republicans have somebody warming the bench waiting to come into the game at short notice? Based on Republican Party organizational skills, it would seem not.