If you don’t understand morale, you don’t understand winning, and you’ll be continually surprised at your losses. You don’t understand morale - you don’t understand how to win, which means you won’t. That’s about as clear as it gets.
I understand what you're getting at, but you're not getting what I'm saying. There are winnable districts, and there are non-winnable districts. Occasionally, there are unusual factors that can contribute to our carrying non-winnable seats (LA-2, for example), but even in those, you generally tend to have a GOP voting bloc of (at least) 1/3rd. I'm trying to get it through to you that the SF district is not even 1/10th. It is that way not for racial reasons, but for clear and distinct ideological ones. It is stupid to waste a dime here on one of THE most unwinnable viscerally anti-Republican/anti-Conservative districts in the United States. It has zilch to do with morale. I cannot agree in the least with wasting money on such districts. I'll say it again, in the field of battle, if the General is untouchable on their turf, you take out as many of their officers and soldiers as you can where they CAN be taken out. A General without an army is less than useless.
Just as an aside, why the last Democrat Speaker we took out in 1994 was accomplished was simple to understand... Tom Foley occupied a Republican-leaning district. Pelosi's district nowhere resembles that seat, nor does Steny Hoyer's ever-increasing Democrat district in Southern MD (which was competitive in the early to mid '90s, but not with the demographic changes there).