Lights shone on six chairs onstage at USC Tommy’s Place, set up for a political panel discussion. One group was missing – the College Republicans.
Every semester, the Political Student Assembly, Political Union, the Undergraduate Student Government and USC Dornsife host a debate between the Trojan Democrats and College Republicans on current political issues, like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) or tariff policy. This year, the event was held on Nov. 6, although the organizing groups had to switch the format to a discussion-based panel the day before when the College Republicans were unable to find enough members willing to debate.
“We were unfortunately unable to find enough representation to participate in the debate/panel today,” a College Republicans statement said. “We wish everyone involved a successful event and look forward to debating the Trojan Democrats on the key issues facing our nation in future semesters.”
Political Union President Eleanor Love said that the organizing groups had reached out to other conservative political groups on campus, such as Trojans for Life and Turning Point USA, but had also received a lack of interest from them.
“We wanted to still hold the event,” Love said. “We think it’s really important to have students see and engage in civil discourse, especially during a very fraught time in politics.”
Instead of the typical debate, the panel featured two Democrats and two Republicans, one faculty member and one student on each side. The two faculty members were Republican Frank Lavin, a fellow with the Center for the Political Future, and Democrat Diego Andrades, the assistant director of the Center for the Political Future. The students included Democrat Patrick Done, the Trojan Democrats president, and self-described “centrist acting as a moderate Republican” Ariella Kohanoff, a junior majoring in political science.
Kohanoff, who is not a member of the College Republicans, said that she got involved after the College Republicans dropped out, as a way to represent Republican students, even if she viewed herself as more moderate. She felt the event was too important to simply cancel.
“Talking about issues gives them importance to the lives that they impact, and that’s why I came out today,” Kohanoff said. “That’s why I’m studying political science.”
The need for civilized discourse was a strong theme for the panelists.
“I think it’s really important that we engage in cross-partisan dialogue. I think it’s such a big part of how we make this country better,” Done said. “Ultimately, the gift of our democracy is our ability to speak to people and debate openly.”
Proposition 50, the New York City mayoral election, and the future of politics were all main topics of the events. Discussion on Prop 50 started with the idea of not being in “normal times.”
“Parts of Central Valley, which are very conservative, voted to support this proposition despite, I would argue, those parts of California potentially losing the votes for representation under this measure,” Done said. “I think obviously we would not want to support this kind of measure in normal times, but we are not in normal times.”
The faculty members also brought up the importance of this ballot measure in future elections.
“It’s not just a win in the sense of having a slight lift in [Democrats’] House position, but it’s also a lift for Governor Newsom politically, because he led on this, and he made it happen,” Lavin said. “It, I think, helps define him as a person who’s willing to lead the fight against Trump.”
The students on stage furthered the conversation of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s likely run for president.
“I think it’s saying something that Gavin Newsom, who had a pretty bad rap, especially after
the Palisades Fires and talk that it was his mismanagement that led to it, that he was able to push for Prop 50, and being its leader, get it passed,” Kohanoff said. “So maybe it’s saying that some Republicans regret Trump.”
Done felt that Newsom had done more to repair his image, especially with his recent social media campaigns.
“I think we’re seeing a new kind of hyper-partisan, or partisan warrior, Gavin Newsom,” Done said. “And it seems like everyone likes him. It seems like he’s also been able to really captivate social media, because his press team is pretty unbelievable. The fact that everyone [in the room] has raised their hands about seeing his edits just speaks to the fact that his brand has so fundamentally changed.”
The importance of youth voters and new media was also stressed when the panelists discussed the New York City mayoral race.
“Mr. Mandani has really been able to engage young people in a pretty incredible way,” Done said. “I think Democrats should actually take lessons from his campaign about being authentic, about not just running candidates who can raise a bunch of money, but about running people who are actual human beings.”
However, Done said, Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s campaign platform was too localized to work on a national level, and Andrades agreed.
Lavin said that, while Mamdani’s campaign was “impressive,” Democrats were unlikely to see this type of candidate on a national level because he underperformed Kamala Harris’s vote margin by 20%, whereas more moderate candidates in Virginia and New Jersey outperformed her.
“If you’re a Democratic strategist or leader or policy person or communications professional, you’d say, ‘I want to mimic the person who outperformed, get out the person who underperformed,’” Lavin said. Done pointed out that Mamdani was running against another Democratic candidate who may have split his voter base.
Lavin also drew parallels between Mamdani and Trump.
“They don’t necessarily have a political record. They’re not running on performance, but they’re running on how they make you feel – to make you feel happy, to make you feel angry,” Lavin said. “So it’s an emotional connectivity with the audience that is very, very powerful.”
Kohanoff pointed out that this lack of political record was relevant to Mamdani’s time in office, not just his campaign. Andrades agreed and said that Mamdani’s success or failure to implement his policies could have “national ramifications.”
“I guess time will show whether or not the tactics Mamdani ran with will actually lower the cost of living,” Kohanoff said.
She also brought up how the rise of emotional voting in candidates like Trump and Mamdani has fragmented politics.
“I think that this culture of populism – candidates who are kind of split against their party, and kind of riding on charisma like Trump and Zohran Mamdani – is just going to polarize politics more,” Kohanoff said. “Maybe one day, we’ll reach a threshold where we’ve had enough government shutdowns that we start to collaborate more and work more cohesively together. That’s my hope.”
The United States is now in the longest government shutdown in history, prompted by indecision on next year’s budget for federal programs, particularly health care. In response to Kohanoff, Done added his hopeful thoughts on the government shutdown.
“As it relates to the shutdown, I think it’s just another sign for so many people that a government [career] is not the right path,” Done said. “I think that is such a disappointing thing that I’ve seen so many college students lose hope in the ability to actually make positive social change… Creating any meaningful change is very difficult, and this often requires so many trade-offs, but it really is worth it.”
Panelists all agreed that having platforms, like the panel, to promote conversation among opposing viewpoints, gave them hope for the future of the country.
“You know what makes me hopeful, is that us on this stage, we didn’t always agree on everything, right?” Andrades said. “I don’t always agree with the things that Frank says, but I also don’t always agree with what Patrick says. I think that in the future, we will all be able to do what people on the stage are doing – to disagree respectfully, but to find that there’s common ground.”
Lavin pointed to the students as the linchpin for these discussions.
“My starting point is everybody in this room has got something to offer, something to say, some element of excellence or an idea, or even a criticism of what I’m saying that is useful for me to hear and bring out,” Lavin said. “And the atmosphere and the culture of USC allow all of that to come to the surface and allow these kinds of conversations to take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect.”
Love thought the panel also helped build this atmosphere on campus.
“I think that actually we exhibited some great civil discourse,” Love said. “Usually, the debates, if you’ve been to them, are a lot more fiery in some ways, but I think this was very civil, really productive. We had disagreements, but in a very respectful way, and we also had a lot of agreement from both sides of the aisle.”
Annenberg Media reached out to the College Republicans for further comment, but received no reply by the date of publication.