The ongoing freak out at the Washington Post is beginning to bleed over into outright derangement. The preeminent bastion of Trump hatred in the mainstream media is reeling again today after the Donald walloped opponents in the Nevada caucuses on Tuesday. Adding insult to injury is the fact that Marco Rubio has long been their anointed one and Trump just horsewhipped him like a vengeful pimp punishing a money-skimming Cuban whore. So it is that columnist Phillip Bump is comparing dashing young Marco to the comeback kid of 1992 – Bill Clinton.

This bit of world class turd polishing is undertaken by the writer in the column entitled “Marco Rubio keeps losing. So did Bill Clinton”:

Once upon a time, back when it first looked as though Sen. Marco Rubio would not win in the Iowa caucuses but would do decently afterward, there were reports that his campaign had a “3-2-1” strategy: Third in Iowa, second in New Hampshire, winning in South Carolina.

Sure enough, he came in third in Iowa and was headed for second in New Hampshire — until he ran into some traffic problems during the Republican debate a few days earlier. He came in fifth there, and second in South Carolina, barely. In Nevada, he finished in second. Three-two-one is out the window, in favor of 3-5-2-2.

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?

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.

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!

Bump provides a snazzy graphic with statistical information from 1992-2012 to pump up the morale of Rubio loyalists and assuage the anxieties of the big donors who have bet big on the Florida senator as “the One” who can beat Trump – a fantasy reminiscent of Neo in the Matrix – but it should do the trick for now and keep the volume on suicide hotlines relatively low. The establishment is still desperately trying to reassure itself that the Trump revolution is just a terrible bad dream and soon they will awaken safe and secure in their comfy beds. I will tell you what is truly insane though and that is the WAPO hustling stuff like this in the hope that many Republicans can take some solace that their Prince Charming is just like Slick Willie.