Third debate is a surprisingly subdued finale Marquette University students Sara Johnson, left, of Wausau, Wis., and Kristen Hall of Cincinnati are reflected in a television as they watch the third presidential debate in the student union Wednesday, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Morry Gash) By Ronald Brownstein AP/Los Angeles Times WASHINGTON -- After two debates about strength, the presidential candidates dueled to demonstrate compassion in their surprisingly subdued final debate Wednesday night. While the first two encounters produced a succession of sharp exchanges on national security issues between Sen. John F. Kerry and President Bush, the candidates generated far fewer sparks Wednesday night as they sparred over a wide range of domestic issues that haven't been widely discussed in the presidential race -- from immigration to affirmative action to gun control. Although Bush began with an aggressive effort to paint Kerry as an ideological liberal, he pursued that goal with steadily less energy as the debate proceeded. Instead, on issues from immigration to gay rights and abortion, Bush sought to re-establish his image as a compassionate conservative by combining conservative positions on the issues with emphatic pleas for tolerance and understanding. Kerry delivered a steadier and more confident performance than in last week's second debate. From the outset, he relentlessly sought to portray himself as a tribune of the middle class, promising to defend American workers and repeatedly charging that Bush's economic policies have favored the affluent. And, after seeming uncertain and defensive on social issues last week, Kerry expressed more unambiguous support of causes important to his political base -- from protecting legal abortion to defending affirmative action. But the very breadth of the questioning from moderator Bob Scheiffer may have prevented the two men from ever establishing a real rhythm or advancing the principal arguments between them. The result may be that after three presidential debates, more than seven months of head to head campaigning and an unprecedented level of spending, the race for the White House moves into the final turn almost exactly where it began on the day after the Supreme Court stopped the vote recount in Florida nearly four years ago: in a virtual dead heat. The instant ABC News survey of debate-watchers, even though weighted heavily with Republicans, found they divided almost exactly in half as well, with 42 percent saying Kerry won and 41 percent picking Bush; independent voters, however, picked Kerry by seven percentage points, which could signal broader gains in polls of the overall electorate in the next few days. In a CBS Poll, undecided voters preferred Kerry 39 percent to 25 percent. For Kerry, the biggest development in the evening may have been his success at standing next to the president for three debates without suffering a major gaffe or ever appearing overmatched. Based on the initial viewer reactions, this encounter seems unlikely to dent the conclusion in the political world that the debates have done Kerry far more good than Bush, mostly by helping Kerry ameliorate some of the negative impressions that voters developed about him amid intense attacks from Bush and his allies since mid-summer. When the debates began, national polls gave Bush leads of as much of seven or eight percentage points; now almost all surveys show the race neck-and-neck. Just as important, almost all surveys now show Bush attracting less than 50 percent of the vote -- always a troubling sign for an incumbent this close to an election. "That's the most telling fact right now," said independent pollster John Zogby. But with the polls still so tight, and the parties preparing to mount vast get-out-the-vote operations that could tilt a close race either way, neither side can claim any meaningful advantage at this point, many experts agree. "We're in a virtual tie now," said Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego. "If either had made a major blunder it would have made a difference. But at this point, we're down to 2000 all over again -- equally balanced, highly polarized. We just don't know the outcome; it's too close to call." Though the two men challenged each other aggressively at points in the early stages, it never appeared as if their heart was into confrontation as much as during their first two debates. Early in the debate, Bush attacked Kerry's congressional voting record as too liberal and sought to portray him as out of the mainstream. Kerry accused Bush of ignoring problems such as declining access to health care and the loss of good-paying jobs, and he charged that Bush has favored tax cuts for the rich over programs such as after-school child care that benefit the middle-class. But the debate steadily lost its edge, possibly because the questions often raised subjects that did not easily allow the candidates to develop sharp contrasts. The shift was especially noteworthy for Bush, who has seemed determined to draw ideological contrasts and came into the debate with many Republicans believing he needed a clear victory to reverse a slow drift in the race away from him. "If you thought this race was drifting toward Kerry, this did nothing to stop that," said veteran GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio. "Certainly Bush was far more restrained than I thought he was going to be. ... I expected to see the president take the wood to Kerry, and he only took a couple of swipes." As the evening proceeded, Bush put more emphasis on trying to ground himself in the center, especially by emphasizing issues that could soften the martial image he has often projected on the campaign trail. He repeatedly cited the education reform legislation he passed in 2001. While he said he would oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants, he also tried to signal empathy for their situation, when he said, "If you can make 50 cents in the heart of Mexico, for example, or make $5 here in America, you're going to come here if you're worth your salt, if you want to put food on the table for your families." Likewise, though Bush clearly indicated his opposition to gay marriage and jabbed Kerry over his opposition to legislation signed by former President Clinton that allowed states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, he prefaced that answer with an extended plea for tolerance of homosexuals. "We have a choice to make in America," Bush said, "and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity." Perhaps the best measure of the evolution in Bush's approach as the evening wore on was his references to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. Early in the debate, Bush twice portrayed Kerry as a symbol of excessive liberalism; by the debate's later stages, Bush touted his work with Kennedy on education reform. White House aides had predicted that Bush would use the debate to sharpen the ideological distinctions with Kerry that the president now hammers every day on the campaign trail, and he made some attempts in that direction early on by charging that Kerry had repeatedly voted to raise taxes. But by his closing statement, Bush had abandoned any effort to present an ideological contrast and instead dwelled on his "optimism" about America's future. Kerry's trajectory over the evening was similar, if not quite as dramatic. In his first few answers, he aggressively indicted Bush's record. "Five million Americans have lost their health insurance in this country," he insisted at one point. "He's the only president ... in 72 years to lose jobs," he said at another. Yet in the debate's final stage, Kerry praised Bush for his immediate response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, for an answer on his religious faith, and as a father. In his closing statement, Kerry continued the effort he began in the second debate to present himself as a non-ideological pragmatist. "I don't care whether an idea is a Republican idea or a Democratic idea," he said. "I just care whether it works for America." In all these ways, the two men seemed heavily focused on swing voters. Yet on both sides, the evening's most memorable moments may have come in the most explicit appeals to the candidates' political base. Bush's strongest answer may have come when Schieffer asked him about the role of religion in his decisions. Bush balanced powerful promises of tolerance with heartfelt expressions of his own religious faith that recalled his famous remark during the 2000 GOP primaries when he identified Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher. "You're equally an American if you chose to worship an Almighty and if you chose not to," he said, before firmly underscoring his commitment to the former camp. "Prayer and religion sustain me," Bush declared. "I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency. I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Someone asked me one time, `Well how do you know?' I said, `I just feel it.' " Fabrizio said that answer would likely resonate powerfully with religiously devout Americans who the Bush campaign is working feverishly to turn out next month. "You talk about a sweet spot: that was a sweet spot," he said. "If the Bush campaign strategy is to energize the fundamentalist conservatives, that's the answer." Kerry was less personal and more programmatic, but even more dogged in his attempt to signal empathy for his political base. After offering a fuzzy answer to a question about abortion last week, Kerry Wednesday unequivocally expressed his determination to defend its legality. He promised a staunch defense of affirmative action and reiterated his pledge to provide a pathway for illegal immigrants to become citizens -- a top priority of Latino groups, though an idea that could provoke a counterattack from Bush. At several points, he framed questions about economic issues in terms of their impact on women, blacks and Latinos. Alternating between messages aimed at their staunchest supporters and swing voters, this seemed a debate in which the candidates tried to touch all bases. That may be the only sensible strategy in another election that heads into its final weeks so close that small shifts in almost any portion of the electorate could decide it. Los Angeles Times staff writers Kathleen Hennessey and Doyle McManus contributed.