Yep -- there are some who think that there's a 'victory in defeat'. No such thing -- if you don't win, you don't govern or set the agenda. The fact that Sanvhez came this/close to winning means nothing. He's politically unemployed, and the only say he'll get in government is when he shows up for open-mic night at the city council chambers.
Hard to argue with that. Playing for a "close" race, or finding encouragement in a "near victory", is just whistling past the graveyard. Finishing second in politics means just one thing: you lose. Brown and the 'Rats will take this "near loss" right to the bank and run the city for another term, and won't worry about how close the victory was. I've seen too many elections where the 'Pubs come close to winning, get all excited and giddy about their close loss, saying how encouraging it was to come so close ("we'll get 'em next time"), then get slaughtered in the next election because they forgot that the 'Rats had the time to prepare, and had their hands on the levers of power to fix things up and grease the skids for the next round.
One thing you have to say about the 'Rats is that they know the operable factor in politics is that first, you have to win. That is not to say that you must win at any and all costs, but you have to have the attitude that being elected is the primary means to enacting an agenda. I'm not sure the 'Pubs, or conservatives, really understand this.