Notice the distinct lack of 1's. Yet Rubio's still in, and many people think he's still got a shot, if he can consolidate the establishment vote and then the anti-Trump vote. But he keeps losing! Trump's rolling up delegates! Are those people delusional?

AD

AD

Well, no. They probably have the burden of proof, but they're not necessarily delusional. The recent history of nominations, in fact, makes clear that the fight can often be long, drawn out -- and the eventual victor slow to get out of the gates.

The last eight successful contested nominations for each election year look like this.

There were some quick wins: Al Gore and Bob Dole. There were a few slogs, too, including Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. But notice, too, Bill Clinton.

Clinton lost and lost and lost, over and over. He was similarly in a splintered field, which took a long time to work itself out. This doesn't map one-to-one -- there was no candidate that had a 2-1-1-1 strategy, as Donald Trump does -- but it reinforces the central idea: This thing is necessarily complex.

Notice, too, that the elections had been starting earlier and earlier, until this year. That means earlier resolutions than we're likely to see in 2016.

Anyway, if you're a Rubio fan, that's the most consolation I can offer you. Others have had rough starts and won, too!

Once out of the last eight contested nominations.