for sb.按不定式的逻辑主语还是状语理解好

Attracting these would-be quitters is a reasonable strategy in the Netherlands, where politics is so fragmented that anything over 10% is a good result. But it is a weak foundation to rely on for those hoping to win more than half the vote, such as Ms Le Pen.

《经济学人》上面的一个句子，to rely on的逻辑主语是for those...。我想问的是，不定式的逻辑主语是否需要放在to的前面？假如不在前面，就要按状语理解吧？翻译为“对于”？

谢谢各位专家老师！

But it is a weak foundation to rely on for those hoping to win more than half the vote, such as Ms Le Pen.
的确，to rely on 的逻辑主语是 for those...，原本应放在不定式之前，是这个样子：for sb. to do sth.，但因为 those 的内容过长，后面有一个作定语的分词短语，为了照顾匀称而后移。如此处置后，其逻辑主语的身份并没改变。所以，在划分句子成分时，为了维持规则的一致性，不适合另起炉灶，人为添乱。