The real problem is finding a way of getting rid of entrenched incumbents who get elected for life. The best way to do that is through fair redistricting, since that gives challengers a real chance. Redistricting also deals with Congressional representatives, who can't be touched by state-mandated term limits.
Even without gerrymandering, incumbents will retain a significant (but not necessarily insurmountable) advantage. That's where term limits can provide some added benefit. It prevents even the most powerful state legislator from becoming ensconced for life. But the present limits are too short, because they are trying to perform the extra function of compensating for the current gerrymandering.
If Arnold can get a fair redistricting plan approved by the voters, that will be a much greater political reform than term limits. And if a modest increase in the existing term limits will mute the opposition to redistricting and help it pass, that's a great trade-off. Indeed, I would consider it a win-win.
The longer a politician is in office the more expert he becomes, he becomes expert in stealing money from the people, he becomes expert in how to pass really crappy legislation by appending it to another worthwhile bill. He(or she) becomes expert on all sorts of illegal and highly questionable acts. Oh, yes, term limits certainly limit the learning process alright, which is why CA voters voted for term limits. Arnold had better get with the program. I have had it with this guy.