5.38am BST

Just as clearly as the first debate was a win for Mitt Romney, this debate was a win for Barack Obama – although not as a lop-sided an outcome as the 3 October result was for the Republican.

Romney overdid it here, which seem strange because he could have coasted a little and played safe. But his gung-ho style came across as tetchy in the town hall format, and it rebounded when he couldn't repeat his trick of the last debate of gaming the moderator's patience and taking up every scrap of spare speaking time.

Several times Romney got gently slapped down, up the point when Crowley actually told him to sit down, albeit politely. How that sort of posturing comes across is anyone's guess but predictions that Romney would get rattled and play the ref were accurate.

Obama's gentle needling paid off particularly in the Libya answer, when Romney had obviously come to believe his campaign's own rhetoric that the White House had somehow avoided calling the Benghazi attacks an act of terror. He thought he had Obama trapped; instead, it was Romney who went into the ditch. Romney seemed to flag after that, although his prepared closing remarks were spirited and well oiled.

Obama had a better time of it, pushing back against Romney's coin-clipping and cheese-paring, but probably spent too much time attacking Romney to have made this a rout. He still has no clear, positive answer on the economy and jobs to give. Depressingly, neither candidate has much to say on economics.

This debate was better run than the previous one, and it was better for it, while the range of questions was broader, which hurt Romney and helped Obama. Romney's answers on the likes of gun control, immigration and pay equality didn't even flirt with the questions that were asked. As in the Republican debates, he looked out of his depth.

Yet the gravestone of this debate has Libya marked on it. It was Romney's big opportunity to hit a home run. But like Alex Rodriguez, he couldn't even take a swing tonight.