We do elect conservatives in states where Republicans have a voter registration edge. In California Republicans have a 10% deficit in comparison to the overall electorate. So we have run someone fairly moderate to win or risk having the Democrats keep the whole enchilada. I've been asked before, is Arnold an ideal candidate? No. But is he better than the Democrats? By a mile. The Democrats want to tax and spend our state into oblivion. Arnold wants to reduce the tax burden and get spending under control. I don't agree with all of his views but his fiscal and economic views are right where they should be. Am I saying we give up our principles? Never. But we should tailor them to attract crossover votes from sympathetic Democrats and indpendents who don't want extreme liberalism and want a middle of the road government here.
I'm not going to argue the relative merits or demerits of Arnold (although in his vows to reduce the tax burden and provide for everyone at the same time, I'm betting that taxpayers will lose).
The percentage of registered Republicans has little to do with it. It appears to me - a non-Californian - that if you add the numbers, Schwarzenegger plus McC bests Cruz. But the ones who are going to wind up sucking it up are the principled conservatives who will get stuck with either Schwarzenegger or Cruz. In either case, California gets a liberal, and the GOP has either a whipping boy if Arnold loses, or no incentive to change if Arnold wins. And Conservatives take it in the shorts again.
And California cements its status as one of the three dumbest states in the union.