Tsunami said:
Which says absolutely nothing about why they keep choosing actors (whom they supposedly hate...)
Sure it does. Its a purely Machiavellian decision, actors can be very persuasive by nature. Arnold is not like most hollywood actors. He is not a social conservative, but unlike most actors, he is not a socialist.
And we don't hate all actors, just liberal ones, so 99% of them. Reagan was not liberal. Arnold is sufficiently conservative for my tastes, and just from ideological stand points, if he were on a national ballot he could win, being a republican who could easily take california, that would mean instant defeat for any democrat running against him. With out california the democrats go from being 10 electoral votes behind to 120 electoral votes behind. So yeah.
Also though this may be tangent i just thought of something:
Rich democrats got their money from inheritances, lawsuits, or illegal activites *cough*Kennedys*cough*(the family fortune having been based on bootlegging, though yes i'ms ure they've had legitimate income since then ).
Rich republicans get their money from their own business ventures.
Not a universal rule, but a general pattern. Rich people who had to work for their money are conservative, they want to keep what they earned. Rich people who didn't have to work particularly hard (actors) are typically more liberal, they have less understanding of the value of work vs the value of money.