Well, Revisionist Zionism had a big issue in its territorial ambitions, which were implausible. They patches worn on the arms of Irgun members showed an Israel in control of all of Transjordan. This wasn't going to happen.
The War of Independence was a near run thing as it was in many ways. Israel benefitted from the armed kibbutzim (often with Molotov Cocktails and small arms only) in the Galilee slowing down attacks from the north and east, which could have been really dangerous had they gotten going into the Arab Triangle and allowed the Syrian assault to hook up with the Iraqi force before approaching the coastal plain. And had Transjordan really put its back into the effort, it might have been able to drive into West Jerusalem. I don't think the Arabs would have won the war, but the final boundaries were a stroke of luck for Israel considering the initial situation. They had won the Civil War with the Palestinians pretty easily, but the Independence War against the Arab intervention was significantly harder.
Revisionist Zionism would later revise its territorial ambitions, and then do so again, etc, to the point now where one of the Revisionist Parties currently running for Knesset has as part of its diplomatic platform a sort of exchange with a future Palestinian state including a part of land currently in Israel proper in exchange for blocs of inhabitants in Judea and Samaria, largely on the basis of demographic representivity.
You also have to take into account that Revisionist Zionist was not popular with the core of who settled the early state compared to Labour Zionism, as the population had not yet taken in large numbers of Mizrahi Jews more sympathetic to Revisionist Zionism (if not ideologically, than at least as a matter of the enemy of my enemy being my friend). There are a variety of reasons for this: the Second Aliyah was almost entirely a Labour Zionist endeavor, for one thing, and it was they who created most of the prestate institutions. In addition, the Revisionist cause was strongest proportionally in Poland (through the Betar movement), who saw their Jewish populations suffer almost the worst proportionally in the Holocaust (the same reason why Labour Bundism largely died after WW2; in addition to being utterly and completely discredited by the experience of the Holocaust, it was strongest in Poland). In addition, the Jewish population of Hungary was probably the most right leaning of all the prewar Jewish populations in Europe, and while not Revisionist, would have likely been more likely to support Revisionism upon postwar Aliyah. However, Hungary's Jews were massacred almost at or exceeding Polish rates during 1944 and as a result, were not well represented among the postwar Aliyah.
Its also worth mentioning that Revisionist Ideology was not all that well developed. I don't think it would be fair to call it Totalitarian, for example. There were Totalitarians, however, such as Avraham Stern.
Menachem Begin was really the one who formed it as an ideology, and he did this mostly as a lonely opposition figure. Jabotinsky may have been referenced frequently, but the Revisionist Cause in Israel increasingly became dominated by Begin's populist approach. Revisionism was based around middle class Jewish politics so it leaned to the right of Labour Zionism, but it wasn't necessarily liberal initially, having a social democratic strand (Jabotinsky largely agreed with Roosevelt's four freedoms concept). It was explicitly nationalist, and made alliances with the General Zionists, who were Liberals, and as a result, Israel is one of the few countries that has a National Liberal political ideology that has obtained power (in the form of Herut, and later on Likud, which is economically liberal in some regards and populist in others).