I'd settle for someone that embraces at least 75% of the Republican platform.
I think Arnold is about as good as you're going to get realistically given the demographics of that state.
Hogwash. The demographics are no worse than they were when Reagan, Deukmejian, or Wilson were elected.
California - Voter Registration for Gubernatorial races: Year Democrat Republican Other Total 1966 56.6% 40.2% 3.2% 100.0% Reagan (R) 1970 54.9% 39.8% 5.2% 100.0% Reagan (R) 1974 56.6% 36.0% 7.4% 100.0% Brown (D) 1978 56.6% 34.2% 9.2% 100.0% Brown (D) 1982 53.2% 34.9% 11.9% 100.0% Deukmejian (R) 1986 50.8% 38.3% 10.9% 100.0% Deukmejian (R) 1990 49.5% 39.3% 11.2% 100.0% Wilson (R) 1994 49.0% 37.2% 13.8% 100.0% Wilson (R) 1998 46.7% 35.5% 17.8% 100.0% Davis (D) 2002 44.6% 35.2% 20.2% 100.0% Davis (D) 2003 43.7% 35.3% 21.0% 100.0% Schwarzenegger (R) 2006 42.7% 34.4% 22.9% 100.0% Schwarzenegger (R)
I think that's a bit deceptive, the Rats have gone so far to the left, that it's driven a lot of Democrats to be Republicans, the GOP in California is much different than it was in Reagan's time.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
It's an excellent point on the hard registration numbers. But the center of the Democratic party (as manifested in CA, particularly) is far, far to the left of what it was in decades past, IMO, whereas the GOP either is in about the same spot ideologically or, perhaps, also slightly left. A Ronald Reagan could win today because he was such a Great Communicator. I doubt, however, that Tom McClintock can win the governorship even in a perfect campaign -- although I look forward to voting for him either way.