Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonButtigieg stands in as Pence for Harris's debate practice Senate GOP sees early Supreme Court vote as political booster shot Poll: 51 percent of voters want to abolish the electoral college MORE is spending her millions early and aggressively, building out a primary campaign behemoth meant to squash the insurgent candidacy of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders Bernie SandersButtigieg stands in as Pence for Harris's debate practice Bernie Sanders warns of 'nightmare scenario' if Trump refuses election results Harris joins women's voter mobilization event also featuring Pelosi, Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda MORE and keep Vice President Biden on the sidelines.



Clinton has raised an enormous sum of money so far this year, but is also spending at a fast clip. She has so far laid out tens of millions more than the next closest presidential contender, and in the third quarter burned through her money at a quicker rate than any top-tier candidate, Democratic or Republican.





ADVERTISEMENT

Some Democrats warn of a repeat of Clinton’s 2008 primary, when she similarly spent huge sums to ward off a challenge from then-Sen., but was hamstrung as the money dried up down the stretch.“There is concern that this is starting to look like a repeat,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon.But for now, Clinton has the resources to build the scale of operation one might expect from a sitting president running for re-election.Clinton raised $30 million between July 1 and Sept. 30, which is more than any other candidate from either party running for president. She sits on $33 million in the bank, enough to cover a full quarter’s worth of expenses with room to spare.Clinton’s sprawling operation, with a headquarters in Brooklyn and offices spread across the country, resembles President Obama’s 2012 organization more than it does the campaign of any other candidate running for president in 2016.Her decision to run such a campaign is a gamble.

The former secretary of State is betting that the money will keep coming in and match the expenses associated with the massive nationwide corporation she has already built. Staff layoffs would spook donors and would give the appearance of a fading front-runner.



Clinton spent $26 million in the third quarter, which is millions more than any other candidate. The next closest presidential contender on the spending front is Republican Ben Carson, who spent $14 million of the $21 million he raised in the third quarter.



Most of what Carson spent was directed toward his expensive small-dollar fundraising operations, which can be cut back at any time. Clinton, on the other hand, has all of the recurring expenses that come with a sprawling organization.



All told, Clinton has spent $44 million in the two quarters she has been running for president this year. No one else is within $20 million of that figure.



Clinton ramped up spending in the third quarter, posting a burn rate – the ratio of spending to income - of 89 percent. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio Marco Antonio RubioOvernight Defense: Pentagon redirects pandemic funding to defense contractors | US planning for full Afghanistan withdrawal by May | Anti-Trump GOP group puts ads in military papers Democrats step up hardball tactics as Supreme Court fight heats up Press: Notorious RBG vs Notorious GOP MORE are the only other two candidates with a burn rate in the 80 percent range, although in two full quarters of spending, those two combined don't match what Clinton spent in the third quarter alone.



It’s an indication of how massive Clinton’s campaign infrastructure is. Even with so much in the bank, thanks to the $77.5 million she raised in two quarters, she'll have to focus on fundraising to preserve the size of her campaign and grassroots organizing efforts across the country to stay in the game.

The strategy is intentional and mirrors Clinton’s 2008 effort, when she similarly sought to make a show of force early on.

In 2007, Clinton posted burn rates of 47 percent and 81 percent in the second and third quarters, respectively. This time around, she’s at 39 percent and 87 percent.

“One of the things that I learned last time is it’s organize, organize, organize,” Clinton told CNN in a recent interview. “And you’ve got to get people committed, and then they will follow through, and then you bring more people.”



Still, Clinton's cash position is more precarious than it was in 2007. Then, Clinton entered the race earlier in the cycle and ended the third quarter of 2007 $50 million on hand, compared with the $33 million she has in 2015.

The Clinton campaign accelerated spending in the third quarter this year, despite a slowdown in fundraising.



Advertising costs made up the majority of Clinton’s spending spike, as the campaign shifted from a heavy reliance on online advertising, to the more expensive TV ads.

In the second quarter, Clinton spent only $1.5 million on advertising, all of it digital. In the third quarter, that figure quadrupled to $6.1 million, with digital only making up $2.6 million of that total.

Clinton’s staffing costs have also soared, as her payroll swelled from nearly 350 names on the second quarter ledger, to over 500 now. The campaign spent $2.2 million more on salary, taxes and benefits for those additional workers in the third quarter than it did in the second.



Still, the Clinton campaign believes it has budgeted to meet all of these recurring expenses. They’re already three-quarters of the way to meeting their primary election fundraising goals, according to campaign manager Robby Mook.

“These numbers are a testament to broad support for Hillary Clinton’s vision for America and her plans to create rising incomes and middle class growth,” Mook said in a campaign release. “Thanks to the support of all of our donors, we are on track to hit our goal of $100 million during the primary, which will set us up to reach more voters, organize them, and make Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee in 2016.”



The Clinton campaign counts 400,000 individual donors so far. The key will be soaking those contributors who have yet to max out, while finding new small-dollar donors to expand her base.



Clinton has been heavily reliant on donors willing to contribute the maximum of $2,700. While Clinton is getting more than half of her money from max-out contributors, Obama at the same stage last campaign took just 19 percent of his money from maximum donors.



That means those donors are tapped, unable to contribute again during the primary.

Clinton’s team is now fishing in a finite pond: There are only so many Americans who are in the sweet spot of being enamored with Clinton and able to afford a $2,700 donation. She needs to find a larger proportion of small-dollar donors – the same people who fueled the Obama campaign – to keep her enormous campaign infrastructure intact.

In 2012, President Obama amassed a far larger network of small-dollar donors than the former secretary of State has been able to so far in 2015. Clinton brought in just 17 percent of her money from donors giving $200 or less, whereas at the same stage last cycle, Obama’s team hauled in 47 percent of their cash from these grassroots donors.



The ability to attract small-dollar donors is one of the major benefits of incumbency – Obama could tap the same donors he attracted in his groundbreaking 2008 campaign, and he had operatives such as Jim Messina, who were skilled at manipulating data and technology to extract money from these previous Obama supporters.



Clinton’s small-dollar fundraising has taken a hit, in part, because of the success of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who excited the Democratic base and took a remarkable $26 million in the third quarter, with more three-quarters of it coming from small-dollar donations.



In late September, Sanders claimed his one-millionth online donation, beating Obama’s 2008 effort by more than four months. Sanders has far less cash-on-hand than Clinton, but his campaign is spending at a significantly slower rate than the front-runner’s, which bodes well for him in the months ahead



Clinton could be further squeezed by the entrance of Vice President Biden, who would likely compete with her for the big-dollar donors.



“The ‘shock-and-awe’ has not won them the early victory they wanted,” said strategist Bannon. “It’s clear at this point the nomination is not going to be a cake-walk for her.”