d that Gore had won, while thirty-nine percent believed it was Bush. Nineteen percent believed it was a tie.While the second debate at Wake Forest University was the least exciting and was gone over very politely by both candidates, the third debate at Washington University in St. Louis featured the most arguing between the two. Bush tried to illustrate himself as a leader who would reach across party lines and bring the nation together. Bush also believed that, although, both of them could talk and make promises, he could actually get it done. On the other hand, Gore tried to portray Bush as someone who would lend a helping hand to big, corporate companies. After feeling the pressure from the first two debates, Gore came out very aggressive and put the governor on the defensive. When asked about affirmative action, Bush said he was not in favor of it because he did not like quotas. He said, Quotas are bad for America. Its not the way America is all about. He said that he was in favor of affirmative access. To that Gore responded, I dont know what affirmative access means I do know what affirmative action means. I know the governors against it and I know that Im for it. In a post debate poll taken, both candidates got forty-one percent while fourteen percent of the people called it a tie. For more then three months, the polls had been showing a dead heat between the candidates and even after the election, it still stands this way. You have to wonder if both these candidates are worthy or not good enough to be president. I would have to choose the latter. Both these candidates came at a time when they have to follow one of the greatest presidents in our history. I believe that it is wrong that other candidates such as Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan do not get a chance to show what they stand for by participating in the debates. I can surely say that whoever eventually wins the election will not be reelected in 2004 because of the nature o...
