We all know President Obama will win California this year.

But in 2008, the bottom fell out for Republicans in the Golden State — chalk it up to a lack of money for the McCain-Palin ticket, the housing markets tumbling, gas prices, or the sense in the final days that Obama was a sure winner. Whatever the reasons, Obama thrashed McCain in California, 61 percent to 37 percent, about 8.2 million votes to 5 million.

Thus, about 3.2 million of Obama’s 9.5 million national vote margin came from California.

This morning, Survey USA puts Obama ahead, 53 percent to 39 percent; a PPIC poll in mid-September had identical numbers, while the Field poll had a bigger lead for Obama, 58 percent to 34 percent.

Presuming that California’s turnout is in the 13 to 14 million range, and that Romney loses by something closer to the current 14-point margin instead of 2008′s 24-point margin, that puts the Romney-Ryan ticket about 1.3 million votes closer to a popular-vote win. Of course, the presidency is determined by the Electoral College, but the popular vote is an important psychological marker, key to establishing a mandate after the election. Finally, Republicans will be sighing great relief if what we see in California is emulated everywhere else: Obama is running 10 points behind his 2008 totals.

The chances of California being in play in the presidential election are close to nil – but if I wanted to ensure GOP turnout was as high as possible in all of the down-ticket races, I would want something like a referendum on a giant, giant tax hike.

Thank you, Governor Jerry Brown:

Gov. Jerry Brown is pleading with Californians to raise their taxes as part of his solution for solving the state’s budget deficit, but it’s uncertain whether voters will be in an accepting mood come November.

Polls show voters want more money for schools but don’t want to tax themselves to pay for it. They continue to be pessimistic about the economy in a state with one of the highest jobless rates in the nation. And they distrust the Legislature, which oversees the budget.

Brown is facing a tough environment after announcing over the weekend that the state’s deficit had risen to $15.7 billion, much larger than he said a few months ago, said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in Pomona.

“When the governor says devastating things are going to happen, people will say, ‘Look, you said the shortfall was going to be a lot smaller than it was. You were wrong then; why should we believe you now?’” Pitney said. “The governor is facing a trust deficit as well as a fiscal deficit.”

…Brown said the size of the tax is fair given that California’s economy is nearly $2 trillion and the measure would mostly impact the wealthy. When he released his $91 billion revised spending plan Monday, he did so with a plea, asking voters to “please increase taxes temporarily.”

Under Brown’s tax plan, California would temporarily raise the state’s sales tax by a quarter-cent to 7.5 percent for four years and increase the income tax for seven years on individuals who make more than $250,000 and joint filers who make more than $500,000.

The article notes the last seven tax increase proposals have been turned down, including a “temporary” sales and vehicle tax extension in May 2009 by a margin of nearly two-thirds, and that a recent poll indicated that 65 percent of likely California voters support taxing the rich, but a 52 percent oppose raising the state sales and 57 percent oppose raising personal income taxes.

As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with Socialism… as well as California’s model… (perhaps I repeat myself) is that at some point, you run out of other people’s money.

It will never happen, but if you’re wondering what that proposed state of “South California” would look like, geographically and politically . . .

(Map courtesy of this cartographic program.)

Those blue counties have about 13 million people, which would make it the country’s fifth most populous state, behind Texas, New York, Florida, and what’s left of California. It would have roughly 20 congressional districts and 22 electoral votes. It would also be heavily Republican.

Again, it will never happen; Congress and the state legislature would have to agree . . . but I wonder how many Republicans will dream of taking 22 electoral votes out of the Democrats’ column in presidential races and into the GOP one.

From the last Morning Jolt of the week:

‘I’m a Democratic Congressional Candidate, and I Approved This Race-Baiting.’

Apparently the good lefty folks at Talking Points Memo have their limit when it comes to explicitly race-based appeals in Democratic party primaries: The jury’s out on just how seriously Democratic candidate Dan Adler should be taken in the crowded primary to replace departed Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) in California’s 36th district, but the career entertainment executive is drawing plenty of attention for his bizarre — and possibly offensive — ad campaign. In his latest ad, Adler hangs out with a multi-ethnic crowd touting his appeal to Asian voters by pointing out that he’s married to a Korean and that — as a Jew — he can understand what it’s like to be a minority. In a weird and seemingly quite patronizing twist, a heavily accented Korean immigrant woman in a laundromat awkwardly interrupts him throughout the ad, finally asking the camera “What’s a mensch?”

At Hot Air, Allahpundit observes, “For whatever reason, racial demagoguery as practiced by California Democrats seems to be more overt than the usual wink-and-nod sort practiced by their colleagues nationally. Remember Loretta Sanchez warning Univision last year before the midterms that “the Vietnamese” (in the form of Republican Van Tran) were trying to take her seat? She was in trouble for awhile but rallied to win her race comfortably. You may have taken Saigon, “Vietnamese,” but you’ll never take Loretta Sanchez’s district. Adler’s got a tough haul in the primary — among his opponents are California’s secretary of state and progressive favorite Marcy Winograd — so bottom-feeding racial appeals really might be his only shot.”

Over at New York magazine, they’re invoking the has-a-minority-wife-so-it’s-okay! “If Democrat Dan Adler — who is running in a special congressional election for Jane Harman’s former seat in California — didn’t have a Korean wife, this might one of the most racist campaign ads we’ve ever seen. As it is, it still makes us pretty uncomfortable. Also, confused — is it normal to scream out ‘I’m Korean!’ while someone is talking?”

I do like the observations in the comments, including, “What a proud moment for his wife,” and, “What’s worse is that there were at least 19 people (I counted) in this commercial, plus the crew. All those people and nobody thought this was stupid?”