As pressure mounts on President Biden to quit his reelection race after a shockingly dismal debate performance, the spotlight will turn more intensely on two Californians: Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

And although California won’t matter in the November election — whoever is the Democratic nominee will easily carry the state — its huge delegation to the party’s national convention in August could play a decisive role in choosing a Biden replacement.

Harris would top the initial list of possible substitutes with Newsom close behind.

But Harris, 59, has been less popular than Biden, according to polls. And she’s widely considered a drag on the ticket. One fear of many voters is that if Biden, 81, didn’t last out his second term, he’d be replaced as president by Harris.

The former California attorney general looked sharp, however, in a post-debate interview on CNN. And although I’ve long been a critic, I got the feeling while watching her that she might not be a campaign disaster after all.

In fact, Harris might perform well on the stump. Drop the robotic script and be more spontaneous. She certainly would be a more competitive debater against Republican Donald Trump than the weak Biden.

Harris showed genuine conviction — a look she usually lacks — in pitching Biden’s policies. She tried to put the best face on his debate performance.

“Yes, there was a slow start. That’s obvious to everyone,” she said. “But it was a strong finish.”

Well, no it wasn’t, but he did improve — after badly damaging himself, probably beyond repair.

One Harris hurdle, however, is that party leaders remember she bombed running for president in 2020.

Then there’s Newsom, 56.

If Newsom ever wants to run for president — and he acts like he does — now may be his best opportunity, assuming Biden can be coaxed out. There’s persistent speculation about him running in 2028. But he’s in the limelight now and there could be a Democratic incumbent seeking reelection in four years.

Newsom is already warmed up. The two-term governor has been promoting himself nationally while attacking red state policies and playing the role of an enthusiastic Biden surrogate. He has a veteran campaign organization.

But Newsom would need to compete for the nomination against Harris, his old San Francisco ally. And he has said publicly he wouldn’t do that. If he did, he’d be considered a party pariah, especially among Black women, Newsom has said privately.

Actually, I’ve never thought that a California Democrat could be elected president in this era of hardened polarization. Our politics are just too leftist for most of America.

Newsom has Hollywood looks and oratorical skills. But his biggest political asset — being California governor — is also his biggest vulnerability.

One strength that both Harris and Newsom have, however, is that California’s delegation will be by far the largest at the Democratic convention. Presumably it would back a California candidate.

The 496-member slate will field 22% of the votes needed to win the nomination. So if Biden leaves the race, California could play a big role in choosing his successor.

Who else is a possibility? For starters, two governors of key battleground states: Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. There’s also Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

There’s no perfect candidate. But Trump is thoroughly imperfect.

Biden loyalists and lethargic naysayers have contended for months that it’s too late to change horses while the presidential race is underway, especially now that it has neared the final lap. Nonsense.

Conventions were invented to fight over nominations. But smoke-filled rooms unfortunately got a bad name and the Democratic Party went overboard on reforms. And the conventions became boring television shows that fewer people watched.

Republicans had the last convention battle in 1976 when they nominated President Ford over Californian Ronald Reagan. Ford then was beaten by Democrat Jimmy Carter. The last good Democratic brawl was in 1972 when the California delegation propelled George McGovern into the nomination. He was pummeled by President Nixon, a native Californian.

So convention battles sometimes backfire on a party. But this year could be different.

A Democratic donnybrook could stir new interest in the party and wake up the slumbering base that keeps telling pollsters it wants a president much younger than the 81-year-old incumbent.

Political leaders have a bad habit of plugging their ears when the public is saying things they don’t want to hear.

Voters aren’t satisfied with either of their choices. Trump, 78, seems healthier than Biden, at least physically. But Trump’s a pathological liar. “The morals of an alley cat,” Biden told him during the debate.

The voters’ anxiety about Biden’s ability to adequately serve a second term was re-stoked in his halting, hoarse-voiced, awkward performance. He seemed to lose his train of thought at least once and had trouble finishing sentences.

It was the worst presidential debate performance ever.

President Reagan blew his first debate against Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984, raising concerns about his age at 73. But he wasn’t nearly as painful to watch as Biden. Reagan fully recovered in a second debate.

Even if Biden’s decision-making is sound, people perceive him as weak. And that means he’d have difficulty leading the country.

If Trump’s election really would endanger democracy, as Biden contends, then the president should step aside to give the party a better chance of defeating the unfit jerk. He’ll naturally resist that. But those he trusts should level with him and push.

“You don’t turn your back [on someone] after one performance,” Newsom told a TV interviewer. “What kind of party does that?”

A winning party that prioritizes its principles and the nation.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) is calling for President Biden to step out of the presidential election after his debate debacle on Thursday night.

The AJC Editorial Board is publishing a front page editorial Sunday arguing that Biden should bow out of the election “for the good” of the country and to defeat former President Trump.

“The shade of retirement is now necessary for President Biden,” the board wrote.

THE DEMOCRATS’ SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT ATTEMPTS TO SPIN BIDEN’S DEBATE DEBACLE: ‘DID WE WATCH THE SAME DEBATE?’

Biden, they argued, failed to convey a “competent and coherent vision for the future of America” at the first presidential debate in Atlanta on Thursday.

“He failed to outline the most fundamental aspects of his platform,” they wrote. “He failed to take credit for the significant accomplishments of his 3½ years in office. And he failed to counter the prevarications of an opponent, who, according to CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale, lied 30 times during the course of the debate, approximately once every 90 seconds of his allotted time.”

President Biden and former President Trump participate in the first Presidential Debate at CNN Studios in Atlanta, Thursday. (Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images)

AJC said that responses by Biden surrogates, former President Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris as well as the cover-up attempt by aides that the president had a cold were “insulting to the American people.”

BIDEN DEBATE DEBACLE: 10 EYE-OPENING MEDIA RESPONSES, FROM MSNBC PANIC TO ‘THE VIEW’ CALLING FOR REPLACEMENT

Biden’s age and mental acuity was a concern only heightened by Trump’s resolve, the newspaper argued.

“President Biden’s ability to withstand the mental and physical rigors of another four-year term would be of concern regardless of his opponent,” they wrote. “The fact that he is all that stands in the way of Trump returning to the Oval Office significantly raises the stakes.”

President Biden looks on as he participates in the first presidential debate of the 2024 elections in Atlanta on Thursday. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

The editorial board pointed to Trump’s Vice President Mike Pence and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp’s refusal to support the former president as proof of Trump’s “egregious” personal and professional conduct following the 2020 election.

“That Trump remains at the top of the Republican ticket is a testament to the deep divisions and tribalism that has come to define American politics in the 21st century,” they wrote.

President Biden stands at a debate podium in Atlanta, Thursday. (Kevin D. Liles for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The board encouraged Biden to pass the torch to the next generation of Democratic leaders at the convention in August.

“If he truly hopes to defeat Trump, he must pass the torch to the next generation of Democratic leaders and urge the party to nominate another candidate at its convention in Chicago in August,” they wrote. “Doing this will require a massive and unprecedented string of legal and regulatory actions to get a Biden successor named and placed on each state’s ballot. This is difficult and necessary work that must start immediately.”

BIDEN’S ‘DISASTER’ DEBATE PERFORMANCE SPARKS MEDIA MELTDOWN, CALLS FOR HIM TO WITHDRAW FROM 2024 RACE

The right Democratic leader, they argued, would move forward and make a compelling appeal to both Republican and Democratic voters ahead of the election.

“The Democrats have a number of talented and principled leaders who might take the president’s agenda forward and provide the nation with a viable alternative to Trump,” they wrote. “The right candidate would make it a priority to appeal to Republican and Democratic voters.”

President Biden and first lady Jill Biden leave the debate stage Thursday in Atlanta. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The board said that Biden’s very candidacy was “grounded in his incumbency and the belief of Democratic leaders and pollsters that he stood the best chance of defeating Trump in November.”

“This is no longer the case,” they said.

The Atlanta-based newspaper board said that while this may be difficult for some Democrats to swallow, it is the truth.

“Biden deserves a better exit from public life than the one he endured when he shuffled off the stage Thursday night,” they said.

“If he displays the courage and dignity that have defined his political career, he might follow in the footsteps of the nation’s first president and welcome his retirement, secure in the knowledge that he again served his country with honor,” the board ended.

People watch the 2024 presidential debate between former President Trump and President Biden in New York City, Thursday. (Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images)

The AJC Editorial Board’s call for Biden to step down comes just one day after The New York Times called for him to drop out of the race.

“Mr. Biden has said that he is the candidate with the best chance of taking on this threat of tyranny and defeating it,” The Times said. “His argument rests largely on the fact that he beat Mr. Trump in 2020. That is no longer a sufficient rationale for why Mr. Biden should be the Democratic nominee this year.”

“Mr. Biden answered an urgent question on Thursday night. It was not the answer that he and his supporters were hoping for,” the Times concluded. “But if the risk of a second Trump term is as great as he says it is — and we agree with him that the danger is enormous — then his dedication to this country leaves him and his party only one choice.”

President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden arrive at a campaign event in Raleigh, N.C., Friday. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

Following the debate, Democrats and liberal media figures were reportedly in “panic” after Biden’s performance.

The optics led to a full-on meltdown in Democrat-friendly media, with journalists at various outlets reporting on dozens of Democratic Party officials who said the 81-year-old Biden should consider refusing his party’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention.

BIDEN’S INNER CIRCLE SILENT AS PARTY REELS FOLLOWING ‘EMBARRASSING’ DEBATE PERFORMANCE 

Biden gave no indication he would step down at his first rally following the debate Friday in Raleigh, North Carolina, insisting he is capable of beating Trump. 

“I can do this job, because, quite frankly, the stakes are too high,” Biden energetically said. “Donald Trump is a genuine threat to this nation.” 

President Biden speaks at a post-debate campaign rally Friday in Raleigh, N.C. (Allison Joyce/Getty Images)

President Biden also addressed his stumbling performance, saying, “I don’t debate as well as I used to.”

“I know how to do this job. I know how to get things done,” he told a roaring crowd that chanted “Four more years.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Biden campaign for comment.

Two Supreme Court rulings on Friday that dramatically change the law are profound reminders that presidential elections matter enormously for all of us. Like so many of the court’s recent actions, these were 6-3 rulings, with the three justices appointed by President Trump in the majority. These decisions — as with the overruling of Roe vs. Wade and the expansion of gun rights in recent years — simply would not have happened if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency in 2016 and she had picked three justices.

In other words, these decisions cannot be explained by precedent or interpretive methodologies. They are simply a matter of conservative justices imposing conservative ideology to come to conservative results.

In City of Grants Pass vs. Johnson, the court held that a municipality may make it a crime for people to sleep in public even if there are not adequate shelter beds to accommodate them. Grants Pass, Ore., has a population of about 39,000 and a homeless population of about 600. It adopted a series of ordinances meant to keep unhoused individuals from sleeping on public property. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared this unconstitutional and concluded: The “City of Grants Pass cannot, consistent with the Eighth Amendment” — which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment — “enforce its anti-camping ordinances … for the mere act of sleeping outside with rudimentary protection from the elements … when there is no other place in the City for them to go.”

The 9th Circuit was clearly correct as a matter of law: It violates the 8th Amendment to punish a person for an activity — sleeping — that is essentially beyond his or her control. And it also was correct as a matter of public policy. No city is going to solve homelessness by criminally prosecuting the unhoused. Imposing fines that homeless people cannot pay or putting them in jail for brief times is not going to get them permanently housed.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the opinion reversing the 9th Circuit. Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissent explained the cruelty of making it a crime to sleep in public even when there is nowhere else available: “It is possible to acknowledge, and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

Another decision on Friday that clearly represents conservative ideology involved a more technical area of law. In 1984, in Chevron U.S.A. vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court unanimously held that federal courts should defer to federal agencies when they interpret ambiguous federal statutes. This means, for example, that a court should defer to the judgment of the Environmental Protection Agency when that agency sets rules under the Clean Air Act for how much of a particular pollutant can be put into the air. “Chevron deference,” as it is known, is based on the idea that Congress cannot legislate with specificity for every matter and purposefully leaves many details to the expertise of the federal agency. Especially with regard to technical matters, the agency and not the courts are the experts.

But businesses long have opposed Chevron deference. They want to make it easier to challenge agency regulations in court. On Friday, the Supreme Court gave them their wish and expressly overruled the Chevron decision. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court: “The reviewing court — not the agency whose action it reviews — is to decide all relevant questions of law and interpret … statutory provisions.”

As it did when it overruled Roe vs. Wade, the Roberts court again gives no weight to precedent in discarding a 40-year-old decision that has been a cornerstone of administrative law. The decision represents a huge shift in power from federal agencies to the courts. As Justice Elena Kagan said in her dissent, it will produce a “large scale disruption” because Chevron deference has been a crucial part of “modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.”

Both of Friday’s decisions will have a real impact on real people’s lives. The unhoused now face criminal sanctions for engaging in the biological necessity of sleeping in public when there is nowhere else to sleep. Agency rules to protect the public’s health and safety are much more likely to be overturned.

The explanation for these rulings is not to be found in anything in the law; it can only be explained by who is on the Supreme Court. As the public focuses on the 2024 presidential election, especially in light of Thursday night’s debate, it is crucial to remember that the most long-lasting legacy of any president is who he or she puts on the Supreme Court.

Erwin Chemerinksy is a contributing writer to Opinion and dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.