The Fundamental Theorem of Politics?

Here's my game-theory-style explanation of politics:

Let "A" and "B" represent individual candidates, political parties or both.

A and B want to win elections.

A wins the election.

Question: What does B --the loser-- need to do in order to win the next election?

  Case 1: A has bad ideas and may or may not be competent

B can win the next election by staying out of the way, allowing A to push their agenda forward. A will deliver negative results and people will elect B at the next possible opportunity.

  Case 2: A has middle-of-the-range ideas and may or may not be competent

B has to do just enough to ensure A's outcomes are negative. Without this subtle influence A could get lucky. If B can nudge A into delivering negative results, B can win. B has to interfere and sabotage while making sure they are not connected to the failures.

  Case 3: A has excellent ideas and is quite able to deliver

B's only option is war against A. This means character destruction, interference, sabotage, time-wasting, fabrications, lies, etc. B has to engage in an all-out attack against A. Without this A will win the next election. Worse yet, the risk is a change in ideological alignment of voters that might last multiple future elections. B, facing an existential threat, has no choice but to attack.

With this simple model one can observe politics and reach a few conclusions by noting how the losing party behaves after an election.

This, to me, in the last 30+ years of paying attention to the way this game is played, explains what I've seen in politics throughout the world. Sure, there are variations, such as, in some countries, B will depose, jail and even assassinate A. I believe, for the most part, the three fundamental scenarios cover the majority of circumstances.