It's still early, and one of them might break out and make a race of it, but the "pure" message of conservatism doesn't resonate here.
Enough of it does that a "pure" candidate can be successful. The problem is packaging by and ignorance among the political "professionals" for whom I have little to no respect.
If that means we have to get behind a guy we agree with 50% of the time in order to keep another guy out office we agree with 0% of the time, that's the reality and we need to accept it.
Actually, Gray Davis isn't as bad as it gets. Even I would give him 10%.
Falling on our swords in a noble effort to keep ourselves "true" to the "pure faith" has no merit when the state is going down the tubes.
You keep assuming that this is a matter of faith and not rational practicality. You've been living in the thesis/antithesis world for too long. There are other options you haven't considered.
As for the 14%, it's a far cry better than it was only a couple of days ago. As people get to learn more about Ahnold, those numbers will shift. The depth of his support is very weak. Fortunately for you, I don't have time to go after his negatives. I'll stick with defining a positive program which you'll see in fairly short order.
The fact you don't see the kind of distinction between the parties that I'm refering to illustrates the futility of trying to debate this with some folks. (I mention this, and many folks here on FR know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.) And, btw, since you're able to read my mind, tell me what the policies are that I'm willing to accept that are identical to the "evil Democrats."
I'm too tired tonight to deal with it, and it's probably hopeless trying to explain it anyway. Good night, and good luck to you.