Part of the conventional wisdom about why Donald Trump’s presidential campaign will ultimately collapse is that he’s not really running a campaign. According to this line of thinking, media attention can only take you so far—and at some point, you need a field operation. Which is why this is so interesting:
The robustness of Trump's field operation as outlined in the January fundraising reports looks more like that of Democrats Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton than any of his four Republican competitors.
At the beginning of the year, Trump had more salaried campaign employees than Texas Sen. Ted Cruz or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, whom he has identified as his two closest competitors. In addition, Trump had at least 17 paid field consultants in states beyond the first four to vote, a network that touched Alabama, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.
And his campaign was already paying for office space in eight states that vote in March. Sanders and Clinton each had a presence in at least a dozen states voting in March, their January campaign finance reports showed.
That is fascinating. It’s almost like he’s really trying to become president and has gotten one or two clues about how to make that happen.
For all that, Trump hasn’t spent nearly as much as his serious competitors:
Trump has been able to pump money into employees and offices in part because he saves cash in important ways: He doesn't do traditional fundraising, which can be pricey, and has done far less advertising than is typical for a leading presidential candidate.
Why would Trump spend money on advertising when the media is willing to give him nonstop coverage? If he wants to attack another candidate, all he has to do is say something in a speech or interview and it will be in all the headlines and playing in a loop on cable news.