This whole situation is an interesting one to watch from another state with a schism in it's Republican party(Tennessee.) Here the mentality of supporting the electable, more moderate candidate gave us Lamar! and the Democratic "moderate" governor that many of the Republican officials supported over a Conservative Republican.
It seems the choices in California have come down to supporting Conservatism and increasing the chance that the Democrats will further ruin the state, or supporting a Liberal Republican and risk finishing off any chance the party has.
Nationally, the Republicans have lost much of their collective will by embracing parts of the enemy agenda to gain seats. Now California is faced with the same choice. If I compromise so much that my enemy's agenda is advanced more than mine, who wins?
If I compromise so much that my enemy's agenda is advanced more than mine, who wins? I do understand.
However, it's not always a question of principle. Sometimes it's more a question of tactics.
Perhaps losing less is better than losing more. Is a modicum fiscal conservatism worth preserving now, while keeping the fight alive -- or would you rather lose the fiscal fight and have your agenda totally squashed.
Perhaps, through exposing the folly of both the left and the center right, the "far right" could win in the long run. And with a center right R in office opens the door for the R views to be aired.