A study shows that it might be easier to get people to change their minds by agreeing with them, in an extreme way:
I know when I see some Poe’s law stuff, I sometimes wonder if it’s a joke or real. Now we know, it could be very clever propaganda!
Problem with that theory is this: At least in the case of established politicians saying really ridiculously screwball stuff (like Todd Akin with his “legitimate rape” wisdom), they are known characters with known positions, saying things that are consistent with their well-known ideologies. In cases like those, it’s hard to see where it could be “false flag” propaganda.
Unless it was a very deep-cover operation? 
The real problem with this is, if the views are already extreme, how do you make them enough more extreme to cause this reflection?
I can’t imagine how this would work.
Scientist: “Right, because a group of 4 cells already has a soul, given to it by an omnipotent, invisible entity.”
Wrong person: “You got that right, bub.”
I mean, what does the Wrong Person say? “Invisible? Huh, that doesn’t sound right…”
“Four cells? That’s really not enough for a soul”
Considering the number of conservatives I’ve met who don’t understand/care that Stephen Colbert is a parody I don’t know how much I agree with this. I think the undercurrent of right wing attitudes in the US is much harsher than people realize and is only recently coming out (the hatred for the kids fleeing gang violence, the ‘let him die’ attitudes about health care during the presidential debates). Attempts to move the overton window to the right might just incorporate those views into the mainstream (like Sharon Angle. 20 years ago Tim McVeigh was a terrorist, now is a second amendment remedy according to a potential senator).
I don’t know how much further you can get unless you are openly calling for fascism or violent revolution that attacks civilians. Even violent revolution is not considered extreme among a lot of people on the right.