Alternate headline: Even the hard-taught lessons don’t always stick. Facing their third cycle of defeat in a row under her leadership, sources within the House Democrats tell The Hill that Nancy Pelosi will survive in her current leadership role — in part to boost the chances of Hillary Clinton:

“I think she stays for sure, and there are two reasons,” said a former House lawmaker who worked alongside Pelosi for years. “One is the presidential cycle. … It’s very much a symbiotic proposition: Hillary’s chances and Nancy’s longevity,” the Democrat said. “The second reason [is] … that nothing major is going to happen in the next two years without House Democratic votes, and it puts her in a position of leveraging those votes to accomplish at least some of our agenda.” Retiring Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) echoed that message, saying he’s seen no indication the hard-charging Pelosi is ready to call it quits. “I hear the rumors, you know, that she’ll prevail in this election easily but then turn it over to her daughter. [But] she never told me that, and until she does I don’t have any real reason to believe it,” Moran, a 12-term congressman, said by phone. “I think we have to take Nancy at her word … that she’s committed to leading the Democratic caucus and electing a Democratic president in 2016.” Asked about the Hillary Clinton factor, Moran didn’t hesitate. “I think Nancy would love to be the first female Democratic Speaker to serve under the first female Democratic president,” he said.

How much should we buy this argument? It sounds like the kind of bravado one usually hears before any election, even one turning as sour as this midterm cycle appears to going for the Democrats. The suspense is all in the upper chamber, and victory for Democrats there has been defined as only losing five Senate seats to the Republicans. Even with that low bar, their odds of prevailing seem to get longer every day.

No one has seriously suggested that Pelosi would lead House Democrats back to a majority in this cycle. Right now it’s beginning to look like the second blowout in three cycles for the former Speaker, who managed to secure a majority for her party in only one cycle since taking the gavel in 2007. That came in 2008, when Barack Obama rather than Nancy Pelosi led the party to a win, and even her 2006 victory had more to do with George W. Bush being President.

In fact, that might be the argument that Democrats use to keep her around as their leader in the House. When was the last time the GOP made Pelosi the center of their attacks? It was the last time she had any influence on matters, which was in the fall of 2010, right before she lost the majority. Neither this election nor either of the last two had much to do with Pelosi, although Republicans certainly used her as a bête noire in 2010 to good effect. They aren’t this time, though, because Obama is a much more effective foil, especially because he keeps attaching himself so effectively to Democrats facing tough elections.

So Democrats might feel that at least the last two losses were not exactly Pelosi’s fault. That’s true as far as it goes, but even so, Pelosi is hardly an asset at this point except in turning out the base — and it doesn’t appear she’s doing much along those lines anyway. She’s the progressive figure that allows Republicans to turn her into a polarizing figure at almost any point they want. That’s why the idea that this helps Hillary Clinton doesn’t make much sense. If Hillary runs for the nomination, that might work to her benefit, but not in a general election when Hillary will need to move away from Obama and especially the progressive agenda.

This sounds like pre-election bravado rather than a realistic assessment at all levels. If House Democrats suffer another large setback in two weeks, the decision probably won’t be Pelosi’s anyway.