The problem from the point of view of principle is education, not just winning at any cost. A short term win (such as gradual migration of an economy to slave-free) would not avoid a long term loss (Civil War).
Likewise, just because the White Rose did not entirely succeed in Nazi Germany does not make their cause any less just, or pointless. They were right in principle. Sometimes that matters more than winning.
Applied to California, I want to remain optimistic. I would like Arnold to drop his ersatz liberalism and embrace Tom's economic policy. For his part, perhaps, Tom might agree to stop attacking Arnold's positions on some less central issues (central == economy and budget). That would permit a ray of hope for Tombots who cling to principle, yes? Also a ray of hope for Arnold supporters who want to win at any cost, yes?
On education versus winning: real leaders move people to their point of view. Take Reagan and the speech about the Berlin Wall. Or JFK and ask not what your country can do for you. Arnold is doing vice versa with his hydrogen-powered Hummer, and don't touch education, and seemingly many other planks in his platform. And it probably won't fool a lot of the diehard liberals in the state anyway. The moderates will just take it as a sign that Arnold is no better than Davis, and vote against the recall. Arnold supporters seem to take the recall yes part of the ballot as a given when it is not. But if you throw principle overboard to achieve success, why not a sense of proportion and direction along with it?