From Suites on west campus to Crothers Hall on east campus, students gathered in groups large and small last night to watch the third and final presidential debate between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry.

Below is a roundup of four venues where Stanford students watched and discussed, with each other and Daily reporters, the presidential candidates face off with less than three weeks left before Election Day.

Crothers Hall

When Bush claimed that the majority of tax cuts went to the middle class, the 30 or so students who had gathered in a small, stuffy room in the basement of Crothers Hall let out a torrent of boos. Some yelled, “You’re a liar.” From one corner came an exasperated “Oh, [expletive] you.” Groaning came from the other corners of the room.

The private viewing of the third presidential debate was organized by Kai Stinchcombe, a graduate student in political science and president of the Stanford Democrats, who lives in Crothers Hall. Of the approximately 35 students who showed up, almost all were members of the Stanford Democrats, personally invited by Stinchcombe via e-mail.

“It was just supposed to be a small, informal, get-together for some of my friends to just relax and watch the debate,” Stinchcombe said. Whether he was relaxed or not, there was a palpable, anxious energy in the room.

“It’s certainly not bipartisan in here,” said freshman Emily Warren, a Stanford Democrats officer. “There a lot of people frustrated by watching this debate and thinking how awful it’d be if Bush wins.”

Others agreed.

“This election is so important for us young people,” said senior Lisa Diver, who is president of Students for Choice, an abortion rights group. “What happens in the next four years will shape the world that we inherit.”

Many said that much was at stake in this debate — especially given Bush’s upswing in the polls after the second debate last Friday — and said they hoped for a strong third and final performance from Kerry.

“The big thing is we need Kerry to be solid and show he has a domestic plan,” Stinchcombe said.

After the debate, Stinchcome told The Daily that Kerry was ahead in the polls, with marked improvement in reaching swing voters.

“I was proud of John Kerry for taking firm stands while Bush was flip flopping on the social issues,” he said. “I’m very impressed and optimistic. We’re going to win this one.”

— Gerry Shih

Haus Mitteleuropa and Suites

Initial reactions to the debate’s opening focused on the appearance of the candidates.

“Why do they match?” wondered senior Rafi Ginsburg. “Do they always have to wear red ties?”

“Bush has a stupid haircut,” another student remarked.

The cutaway shots of both candidates’ reactions to each other often drew laughter from the students watching in the common room of Haus Mitteleuropa.

Body language was observed closely in this debate because the candidates’ responses were fairly predictable, said sophomore Andrew Kartunen.

“The debates are set up so nothing is really unexpected,” he said. “So their body language, their eloquence in speech, those things can show their faults.”

Senior Megan Wilcox-Fogel agreed.

“Their campaigns have been almost perfectly distilled into sound bites,” she said. “What was interesting to me was that nothing really stood out. Both candidates basically stuck to their messages.”

Kerry’s comments about his Catholic upbringing resonated with senior Anthea Tjuanakis.

“I thought his statement of faith was really well-crafted and very poignant,” she said. “Up until now, we really hadn’t heard about what John Kerry believes in and how that shapes his public life.”

Graduate student Uchenna Okoye appreciated the attention Bush gave to education.

“I thought he made a lot of good points when he talked about education and jobs,” he said. “I really respected his answer to the unemployment problem as being an issue of education because that is the long term solution.”

The power dynamics between the candidates stuck out in sophomore Feranmi Okahlami’s mind.

“It seems like Bush has been on the defensive for most of the debates, and it really struck me again tonight how he’s constantly having to defend his policy decisions, but isn’t coming up with anything new,” he said.

Ginsburg said he was disappointed that the debate did not bring up anything new about domestic issues.

“I was surprised by how little it had to do with the economy or with domestic policy,” he said, partly blaming moderator Bob Schieffer for the scant coverage. “Bob didn’t do very well; he didn’t do follow-ups when he should have, and his questions were not very good,” Ginsburg added.

The final question, regarding the strong women in the lives of the candidates, confused some viewers.

“What was going on with George Bush joking on his wife?” asked Okoye. “He should be careful — Bill tried that with Hillary, and it screwed him over.”

— Jennie Kim

Barristers, Toyon Eating Clubs

Over 100 students brought their dinners to Barristers, at the Toyon Eating Clubs, to watch the debate. They sat on couches, folding chairs and the floor to get the best view of Bush and Kerry on the large projection screen.

The event was hosted by Stanford in Government, which wanted to spread awareness of the debates to increase student viewership. Julie Lein, a Daily editor and member of Stanford in Government who helped organize the event, said that advertising the debates was a priority.

“More people are aware of the debates if we advertise,” she said. “We hoped that by disseminating information to as many lists as possible, more people would come.”

While the audience was decidedly pro-Kerry, not everyone showed up to support one candidate over the other.

“I want to see them both make fools of themselves,” said sophomore Kat Hoffman.

Others came to the party to watch the debate in a fun atmosphere.

“It’s just an opportunity to watch a debate with other students,” said Cowwor Kuso, a political science graduate student, who has also attended debate parties at Rains and Roble. “There’s a little more energy.”

The environment inside Barristers was subdued, though Kerry’s comparison of Bush’s credibility on the economy to Tony Soprano’s credibility on law elicited a chorus of laughter. Bush also drew some groans early on when he commented on the flu vaccine shortage.

The crowd dissipated as the debate wore on, especially when it became apparent that there would be no fireworks between the candidates like there were at the second debate.

Much of the original crowd had left by the time the debate ended.

— Erik Hope