People seem confused about what Ted Cruz is trying to accomplish with his filibuster. The apparent goal of the current battle, defunding Obamacare, seems impossible to attain.  Too many think that this means that the battle should not be fought. This lack of understanding arises from a basic misconception about the goals of good strategy, which are not always simply "winning."

The single goal of any strategic move is always the same: to improve your competitive position. You should never make any "move" that doesn't improve your position as inexpensively as possible.  People often reduce the idea of a "battle" over a position to a simple dynamic: "defeating opponents."  As Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War 2,500 years ago, this is "foolish goal for foolish generals." Even if you "win," the victory can be so costly that it condemns you to eventual defeat, a pyrrhic victory.

In politics, there are two "arenas" where moves matter: in the battles over legislation and the battles of elections. However, victory in elections always helps in legislative battles while "winning" in legislative battles can and often does hurt you in elections. Legislation matters more to the country, but elections matter more to politicians. Politicians forget this distinction at their peril.

In both arenas,  competitive political positions exists only in one place, the minds of the voting public. In this context, bills are weapons for changing the public's mind. Yes, bills are also important as law, but, strategically, it is the positions that those bills create in people's minds that really matter longer term.

Right now, one of the biggest opportunities for Republicans is the Democratic "success" in passing ACA. The bill is "bad" in  many ways, but the one that matters most in political strategy is its unpopularity in the public mind. A reasonable prediction would be that its popularity is about to plummet even further as we get into a fit of hiccups in trying to implement it.

Did Ted Cruz help or hurt his position and the position of the GOP in his "losing" battle against Obamacare funding?

He unquestionably strengthened his personal political position. His filibuster catapulted him into  public awareness on the most popular side of the debate. His willingness to "lose" the battle didn't hurt his position at all, since he expressed his willingness to lose all along. This makes him seem like he is someone who puts principles above personal victory, both self-sacrificing and humble.

Whether it helps of hurts the GOP is a different issue, depending largely on whether they accept Cruz as a leader or vilify him as a rebel. GOP has been handed a gift by the Democrats. House Republicans have accepted this gift. Senate Republicans seem uncertain about what to do with it. Establishment GOP leaders often confuse their "press" than their position in the public mind. Given the increasing unpopularity of "establishment" politicians of either party and the mainstream media, they need to work less at avoiding "bad press" and work more, as Cruz does, at making moves that establishes a winning position in the minds of the voting public.

The goal is not "defeating opponents," but in establishing clear positions that most people want to join. As long as GOPs leaders do not stake out those positions by making clear moves, they will be positioned by Democrats and the media in the public mind. This has what has happened for the last decade. Except for the Tea Party movement, the GOP mainstream has largely been paralyzed by the fear of being demonized.