I think if we stay with the pro sports team analogies, think of it as commitment to failed tactical strategies. Like football (⚽) managers who want to play possession heavy football with players who just do not have the technical/physical skill to play such a game against skilled opponents. So they're paid to lose because they're paid to play out failed politics.
So they’re paid to lose because they’re paid to play out failed politics.
I get what you're saying -- that paying someone to execute a bad strategy will produce losses, so you're paying them to lose -- I just think that really strains the plain meaning of "paid to lose." When I hear "paid to lose" I think of a boxer (fuck it, let's keep going with sports analogies) getting a stack of cash to take a dive, or your earlier example of the Washington Generals. "Paid to lose" sounds like the outcome is explicitly determined right from the start, and you're paying the loser to go along in producing that outcome.
I don't think that reading of "paid to lose" fits Democrats. I think the "paid to execute a bad strategy" definition fits, but that's more "paid to try and win within narrow ideological constraints" rather than "paid to lose." It's like hiring a basketball coach to run an offense based almost entirely on mid-range jump shots because you think that's a fun style of basketball. You're hamstringing yourself from the start, but you still want to win -- you just want to win on your terms. You don't want to win at any cost.
Yeah, like I agree with you in the end. I've met way too many liberals and democrat organisers who are genuinely well meaning.
I think that leftists feel that way when these parties sabotage popular, succesful leftists inside them, like Pelosi's attacks on AOC, or the all of Labour on Corbyn and feels very much like they're trying to lose. It's more of a sentiment that is experienced subjectively than is applicable to their intentions.
I think if we stay with the pro sports team analogies, think of it as commitment to failed tactical strategies. Like football (⚽) managers who want to play possession heavy football with players who just do not have the technical/physical skill to play such a game against skilled opponents. So they're paid to lose because they're paid to play out failed politics.
I get what you're saying -- that paying someone to execute a bad strategy will produce losses, so you're paying them to lose -- I just think that really strains the plain meaning of "paid to lose." When I hear "paid to lose" I think of a boxer (fuck it, let's keep going with sports analogies) getting a stack of cash to take a dive, or your earlier example of the Washington Generals. "Paid to lose" sounds like the outcome is explicitly determined right from the start, and you're paying the loser to go along in producing that outcome.
I don't think that reading of "paid to lose" fits Democrats. I think the "paid to execute a bad strategy" definition fits, but that's more "paid to try and win within narrow ideological constraints" rather than "paid to lose." It's like hiring a basketball coach to run an offense based almost entirely on mid-range jump shots because you think that's a fun style of basketball. You're hamstringing yourself from the start, but you still want to win -- you just want to win on your terms. You don't want to win at any cost.
Yeah, like I agree with you in the end. I've met way too many liberals and democrat organisers who are genuinely well meaning.
I think that leftists feel that way when these parties sabotage popular, succesful leftists inside them, like Pelosi's attacks on AOC, or the all of Labour on Corbyn and feels very much like they're trying to lose. It's more of a sentiment that is experienced subjectively than is applicable to their intentions.