One of the more beguiling scenarios journalists face is the on-the-record-yes, off-the-record-no. That is, when knowledgeable sorts are asked a question, they'll tell you the truth in secret, but offer a bald-faced lie for attribution. This pretty well annihilates the quaint journalistic goal of informing readers of what the hell's going on out there.

As such, regarding the local results of this month's election, any number of politicos and shot-callers within the city's progressive camp declared that there was much to like about the will of the voters. Races were close. Big money was nearly countered with volunteers' zeal. Organized mail-in ballot campaigns were almost counterbalanced by impressive election-day surges.

Off the record, people are telling a different story: "A stinging defeat" ... "a shutout" ... "I don't get this 'optimism' over yet another loss." ... "We didn't know what the fuck we were doing; I'm amazed we got so close."

Those with deep San Francisco memories will be reminded of 49ers coach Bill Walsh's famously backhanded assessment of quarterback Steve DeBerg: "He plays just good enough to get you beat." And those with deep San Francisco political memories will recall a series of progressive whitewashings of progressive defeats, because it happens every time.

The purpose of this week's column isn't to goad progressives or toss worms on the grave of the progressive "movement." Losing an election doesn't make you a bad person or "wrong" per se. The problem for city progressives is, in order to eventually win, you must first acknowledge you have lost. And make adjustments.

That hasn't happened.

Following David Campos' bitterly contested loss to David Chiu in the 17th-District Assembly race this month, the losing candidate told us how the progressive movement was energized by this defeat and the tide is turning.

Following his mayoral loss in 2011 to Ed Lee, John Avalos told us the progressive movement was energized by this defeat and the tide is turning.

In 2014, Campos was crushed by early mail-in ballots and surged on election day. In 2011, Avalos was crushed by early mail-in ballots and surged on election day. And, in 2003, Matt Gonzalez was crushed by early mail-in ballots and surged on election day.

The tide is, indeed, turning. But not in the way progressives would hope.

On election night, San Franciscans were treated to the specter of Willie Brown ascending the stage at the mayor's official victory party and crowing "Mayor Ed Lee is having a hell of a night!" Indeed the mayor was: The moderates had done well. But across the bridge now named for Brown, every progressive measure or left-leaning candidate romped to victory.

It's difficult to not infer a connection here. If San Francisco's electorate consisted of everyone who's lived in the city at some point for the last five years, this month's results might have been remarkably different. But that's not how it works; we've priced out the sorts of people left-leaning antiestablishment candidates depend on. It seems those people are now voting for other candidates in other cities.

If city progressives can see fit to alter their tactics and cease frontal assaults on the same windmill every few years, they'll be in for perhaps the most daunting battle of all — against this city's demographic trends.

The legions of left-leaning young people who nearly carried Gonzalez to Room 200 in '03 are gone. The city has grown wealthier, more entrepreneurial, and busier. The progressive voters who could devote the time it takes to participate in local politics while earning a living in this city are now doing so in another, cheaper city.

The Chinese vote in San Francisco, meanwhile, has tripled in the last 20 years, and a purported 80 percent of registered Chinese voters are homeowners. They skew older. That means they pick up the phone. That means they have phones, and homes in which to plug those phones into the wall. All of this bodes poorly for progressives. But it gets worse.

When Gonzalez nearly toppled Newsom 11 years ago, only around one-third of voters mailed in their ballots. In recent years, that percentage often exceeds two-thirds. Around 60,000 fewer San Franciscans cast a vote this year than four years ago — and almost the entire difference was in election-day voters.

So, the progressive strategy of rallying emotionally charged voters to turn up on election day offers ever-diminishing returns. This vein has dried up.

San Francisco's moderate establishment enjoys a built-in monetary advantage, and court rulings make it ever easier to cut giant checks and flood elections. What's more, moderates have put time and money into ensuring their reliable voter base is voting by mail; those voters can be hammered at, for months, to cast a vote instead of putting everything into getting them to turn out for one day.

There is no other way to win. City progressives, who are not fools, know this and have known this for years. And yet, nascent efforts to undertake a reregistration project have, consistently, petered out quickly. Your humble narrator has learned that, last week, the city's progressive leadership met to plan out yet another attempt to initiate a reregistration effort, so they can then chase voters for 30 days instead of a frenetic, 13-hour spurt.

Good luck with that. History has not set a kindly precedent.

Perhaps the most unsatisfying spin on the progressives' latest defeat was the Obi-Wan Kenobi argument: Like the corporeal but not spiritual death of the Jedi master, progressive ideals have sublimated their way into this city's ethos, even while flesh-and-blood progressive candidates are rejected and ballot measures are spurned.

The ideals live on. But they're voting for high minimum wages in the Midwest now too — where they also beat California to the punch on same-sex marriage. So declaring that progressive ideals flourish regardless of electoral outcomes sounds more like an epitaph than an excuse. Telling a child at a funeral that Grandpa's memory will live on is true — but it doesn't do much good for Grandpa.

A decade ago, the progressive shot-callers were shrewd operators embedded deep within the heart of city government. They cut deals with developers and funneled money to politically aligned nonprofits that served as the progressive infantry.

Well, that's not happening anymore. It's easier to cut deals when you're in power and have more to offer. And, in any event, today's progressive leaders are less inclined to cut deals.

That's admirable on one level — but, on another, it leaves them outside looking in when it comes to administering to this city. It leaves them ideologically solid but less capable of serving whomever it is they sought public office to serve.

What a paradox. How much more satisfying it is to keep losing the good fight than to win by becoming something other than what you are.

It remains to be seen if the price of victory is one progressives are willing to pay. Or if, once again, they'll take their frustrations out on that windmill.