Final US presidential debate: Obama and Romney on foreign policy - as it happened

Well that's the debates all done then: one huge win for Mitt Romney in the first debate and two victories on points for Barack Obama in the remaining two. How much Obama has repaired the damage remains to be seen.

If you're counting it's about 355 hours until the election proper is over and the polls close.

But the really good news is that there won't be another presidential candidates debate until, oh let's see, 34 months from now and the Democratic (and Republican, if Romney loses) primaries get going.

The Guardian's Gary Younge has his final word on the debate:

Romney had a tougher task. With the race tightening and just two weeks to go until polling day, he had to focus the national imagination on the prospect of a President Romney. His problem was that Obama had left no room to the right on foreign policy that would not have left Romney sounding like Herman Cain (who would probably bomb Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan if only he had known where it was).

So after a month of shape-shifting, fact-mangling and question-dodging Romney finally morphed into a peacenik. "But we can't kill our way out of this mess," he said, with a plausibility that would have had him booed off stage in a Republican primary.

If you can bear it, there's a full transcript of the debate right here.

Bloomberg's Josh Barro is unimpressed by tonight's debate:

Apparently “foreign policy” has come to mean “places in the Middle East and North Africa where we are or might be bombing people, plus some really stupid and demagogic discussion of trade with China.”

As with the vice presidential debate, tonight’s debate felt like a trip back to 2004. If the Euro crisis and the ongoing horrors of Latin American drug interdiction aren’t enough to convince the media that some foreign policy occurs outside the Middle East, I’m not sure what will.

Hey what about Mali?

Anyway, for the narrow range of sabre-rattling questions, you can thank useless moderator Bob Schieffer, who asked tedious Beltway-insider-baseball questions and then didn't bother to police them.

I mean: "What's your position on drones?" Really.

The Associated Press has some fact-checking of the debate:

ROMNEY: "Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea."

THE FACTS: Iran has a large southern coastline with access to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. And it has no land border with Syria.

So wrong on two counts there. But they have some maps and maybe a globe at the White House so Romney will be cool. Let's hope it's not one of those ye olde thyme globes with dragons and such.

And in fact, Lebanon gets on pretty well with Iran, so not sure that "only ally" makes sense either.

Politico has a few quotes of Romney agreeing with Obama tonight:

On bin Laden: "I congratulate him on — on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in Al Qaeda," Romney said early on in the debate. Later, he added: "We had to go into Pakistan. We had to go in there to get Osama bin Laden. That was the right thing to do."

On Iran sanctions: "It's absolutely the right thing to do, to have crippling sanctions," Romney said. I would have put them in place earlier. But it's good that we have them."

On status of forces agreement in Iraq: "There was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with."

Hang on. We moan when politicians are all partisan bickering. And then if they agree with their opponent this is bad somehow? You're all filthy hypocrites.

CNN also has an instant poll scoring it for Obama:

As about nine million people have now pointed out, Mitt Romney claimed that Syria was "Iran's route to the sea," which is of course hilarious since Iran has a whole coastline of its own. Persian Gulf, ring any bells?

Of course what Mitt meant was its route to a real sea, like the Med, not some foreign, third-rate sea like the Arabian sea. I mean, that's barely a sea at all, really? More like a big salty lake.

Another snap poll, from PPP of swing state voters – another big win for Obama there.

The also-excellent Jonathan Bernstein is surprised that Mitt Romney suddenly agreed with a lot of the Obama administration's foreign policy tonight, although I'm not so shocked given Romney's swift and shameless move to the centre in the previous two debates.

Bernstein does sum up the Romney debate tactic in a nutshell:

The problem is that his attacks, over and over again, are just buzzwords and slogans. He’s entirely dependent on people being eager to believe him. On the economy, that may be the case; on foreign policy, it’s unlikely that very many viewers or foreign policy experts see the administration’s policies as “unraveling,” as Romney continues to insist he sees. That is, it’s unlikely that very many viewers agree unless they get the bulk of their information from Fox News.

It may be that on the third hearing of Romney's positions on the likes of jobs and the deficit, some potential voters will be less impressed, as Herman Cain supporters got bored-to-death-by repetition during the primary debates. But I doubt it.

Here's a puzzle though: Libya was the first question tonight, and Mitt Romney really didn't get into the whole Benghazi consulate controversy at all. Perhaps after striking out twice in an attempt to score some points over this, he thought it was better to let it lie.

CBS News's instant poll has Obama as the clear winner tonight:

The downbeat finish to presidential debating season was reflected in the spin room tonight, according to the Guardian's Ewen MacAskill:

Stuart Stevens, one of Romney's leading advisers, speaking in the Spin Room afterwards, said he felt that the debate helped Romney but what mattered now was the campaigning over the next two weeks and no-one would outwork him.

Asked about Obama's sarcasm in talking about the navy, Stevens said; "I did not think his tone and demeanour is something that people would find attractive."

David Plouffe, one of Obama's leading strategists, said: "The president was strong. Romney was unsteady."

Both Stevens and Plouffe left the impression they were glad the debate was behind them and could now get on with the campaign. The campaign was the main topic in the Spin Room.

Many sensible people say Barack Obama was the winner of tonight's debate, including the excellent Taegan Goodard:

For the most part, Romney made an effort to look presidential by not attacking. He was exceedingly careful and desperately tried not to make a mistake. In fact, despite his rhetoric for the last two years, he now apparently agrees with most of the Obama administration's foreign policy.

As a result, Romney's biggest opponent was not the president, it was his own words. Obama did a brilliant job of bringing up past Romney statements – on Iraq, on the nation's biggest adversary, on Afghanistan, on Osama bin Laden – to make him look unprepared for the presidency.

Other things that didn't get mentioned tonight: climate change.

I think Europe did mentions somewhere, in the Syria and Iran replies. And Japan got a drive-by mention.

On the plus side, Mali – or Molly, as Romney seems to call it – got three namechecks. They'll be dancing on the streets of Bamako tonight.

So did Tagg Romney apologise tonight to President Obama for his "take a swing" comments after the last debate?

No idea. Also I can't tell the Romney sons apart.

The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald also thought it was a terrible debate.

That was just a wretched debate, with almost no redeeming qualities. It was substance-free, boring, and suffuse with empty platitudes. Bob Scheiffer's questions were even more vapid and predictably shallow than they normally are, and one often forgot that he was even there (which was the most pleasant part of the debate.)

The vast majority of the most consequential foreign policy matters (along with the world's nations) were completely ignored in lieu of their same repetitive slogans on the economy. When they did get near foreign policy, it was to embrace the fundamentals of each other's positions and, at most, bicker on the margin over campaign rhetoric.

Numerous foreign policy analysts, commentators and journalists published lists of foreign policy questions they wanted to hear asked and answered at this debate. Almost none was raised. In sum, it was a perfect microcosm of America's political culture.

Oh god, now people are fact-checking Obama's joke about the army not using bayonets any more. In fact Obama said the military used "fewer bayonets" not that they don't use any bayonets.

The point being that technology has rather moved on and the bayonet is not the latest thing, although it still comes in useful.

From the bowels of an obscure university in Florida, the Guardian's Ewen MacAskill sends us his thoughts on the debate:

He thought Barack Obama emerged dominant in exchanges over foreign policy.

Mitt Romney looked uncomfortable in the early part of the debate, at least when foreign policy, not his strong subject, was being discussed. He seemed to relax when the subject shifted to the economy, education and tax.

One of the most vivid moments was when Obama, in a flash of arrogance, patronised his opponent, treating him as if he was a child. Lecturing him on military history after Romney complained the navy had fewer ships, Obama said: "You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."

Will this debate make a difference? Probably not. Although Romney was poor, he was not disastrously bad. And he got across his message that he is not belligerent. Talking about Iran, he said the US "can't kill our way out of this mess". That is what a war-weary America wants to hear. An attack on Iran would be a last resort, Romney said. He made peace a central part of his closing speech.

Neither Obama or Romney made any serious gaffes or produced any zingers. The first debate in Denver, where Obama was overwhelmed, was a game-changer. But neither this one nor the one in New York have had the same impact or are likely to. The debates in New York and Florida have seen Obama climb back aboard the campaign but his performances have not been strong enough to determine the election outcome.

Well that was easily the worst debate of the four we've had. Non-existent moderating meant that the two candidates wandered way off topic without a pause for thought, and there were terrible questions to boot.

Unbelievable: not word on immigration, a topic that is both foreign and domestic policy. Nothing also on the EU or the euro-zone crisis, unless you count Mitt Romney's silly claim that America is going to end up like Greece unless he's elected.

Anyway, I'd say Romney won it because he just lashed away at Obama without regard to subject or logic, showed that he knew enough about what passes for foreign policy that he's not going to fart in front of the Queen or whatever. And Obama did what he did in the first debate: lay out Romney's multiple positions and expect that would be enough. Well it wasn't then and it wasn't now.

Everyone will say Obama won the debate because he supposed to up on foreign policy and Romney's not, so in the lazy way journalism works that's the outcome we'll get.

If it matters at this point. I hear all three remaining undecided voters in Ohio went to the bar tonight anyway.

Obama says nothing terribly new or excititng, and neither does Romney. "I want to get people off food stamps not by cutting the program but by getting them jobs," says Romney. But he'll cut the program as well, just in case.

Oh now it's the prepared closing statements! This is usually the high point of any debate, or possibly the reheated soundbites from campaign speeches. You decide.

That last answer, Mitt Romney said "I love teachers" so many times that I suspect he really, really hates teachers.

All the other three debates zipped along and were over before you knew it. This one is like seeing The Master – you end up thinking, is this thing still going? And like The Master I fear the ending will suck.

Meanwhile the Giants-Cardinals baseball game is about as exciting as this debate, the difference being that the GIants are cruising to a 7-0 lead.

Now the two candidates are relitigating the Detroit bailout, in a foreign policy debate.

Can someone check on Bob Schieffer? He might be dead. My own pulse isn't looking too good either.

Glenn Greenwald thinks Romney is benefitting from the lines of questioning from the moderator.

Almost every question moderator Bob Scheiffer is asking is a challenge from the right: will you stand by Israel if they're attacked? Will you still pull out troops from Afghanistan if the Taliban are strong, etc?

This debate is horrid, Obama is winning, and I doubt it will change a single vote.

You can read more of Glenn's thoughts in his rolling commentary update.

Mitt Romney is dialing down the "war on China" rhetoric tonight. "China ... doesn't want to see the world break out into various forms of chaos," says Romney. No but who does want to see various forms and such forth?

Mitt Romney's answer to everything is that America will be so awesome and have so many jobs that everyone will just what it wants.

Obama has a riposte:

Governor Romney is right, you are familiar with jobs being shipped overseas because you invested in companies shipping jobs overseas .... If we took your advice Governor we'd be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China.

So where did feisty Fighting Barack Obama of the second debate go? He has been replaced here by his twin Professor Obama. At least he doesn't look sleepy.

An almost interesting question: "What is your position on the use of drones?"

I'm all for it, says Romney, who somehow then turns this into the Iran-Middle East-tumult answer, almost word for word an answer he gave earlier this evening. He really likes the word "tumult".

Obama then avoids all mention of drones.

That's it for drones, thanks for coming. No mention about how the damn things are used, and the legal issues surrounding the same, but hey, the word got a mention so be grateful.

Here's a video recap of probably the best joke so far (which isn't saying much) 

Another reason why Mitt Romney is lucky tonight: moderator Bob Schieffer's questions are all of a "isn't the world a terrifying place?" that suits Romney's rhetoric, and that of the Republican party.

Personally I think Mitt Romney's doing well enough here. If you really think foreign policy competence is a big issue in most presidential elections, I offer you George Bush in 2000. And 9/11 was 11 years ago.

Obama's problem is that he keeps trying to lay out the details of Mitt Romney's perfidy, but he hasn't been able to crystallize it in a phrase or an attitude.

Having said that, Obama just raised an old quote of Romney's about "not moving heaven and earth" to get Osama bin Laden.

Mitt Romney just tried out his "apology tour" line on Obama, and Obama labelled this "biggest whopper of entire campaign," and said: "Nothing Governor Romney just said is true."

Romney was waiting for this and has a follow-up, and accused Obama of "skipping" Isreal on his Middle East apology tour.

Oh but so is Obama, for that matter: "If we are going to talk about trips we've taken..." and mentions that his first trip abroad as a candidate was to Israel, and that he didn't take donors or hold fundraisers – which of course Romney did. But he doesn't drive the point home.

Romney thought goes on a tear about how awful everything is, and it's all Obama's fault. He's very effective at this, and Obama is wasting his time trying to pick his argument to bits.

The Guardian's Ewen MacAskill is in Boca Raton, and he's scoring it for Obama so far:

Foreign and security policy is always easier for a president, given that he deals with it daily, briefed by intelligence analysts, generals and diplomats. Although Romney has been receiving intelligence briefings since last month, it is not the same. Romney sounds like someone trying to remember their study notes.

Obama had a powerful start, recalling all the foreign policy statements, about-turns and confusing points made by Romney over the last year.

"I know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy," Obama said, patronisingly. "But every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong."

Romney had supported invasion of Iraq and opposed withdrawal, and also opposed withdrawal timetable for Afghanistan.

The president described Romney's foreign policy pronouncements twice as "wrong and reckless".

Romney has been trying to stick to generalities rather than detail. When the debate, though supposedly to be exclusively about foreign policy, switched to the economy and education, Romney seemed much more comfortable than he is in tackling foreign policy.

Obama is winning this one. He could end the night, having taken two debates to one, though the one he lost in Denver he lost disastrously and may still have the biggest consequences.

As usual we are live-giffing this debate in association with Tumblr. Tasty.

Here we are already on Iran, Israel and the United States. And basically Mitt Romney says he'd do everything that Obama was doing but more and sooner. In fact he would have done it – "crippling sanctions" – five years ago, so it's all George Bush's fault.

Mitt Romney also said that the US air force was older than it had ever been since it was founded in 1947. Well, duh. That was true in 1948 too. And every year since.

Oh joy, an actual joke! Romney has rolled out his pre-rehearsed line about the US navy being smaller than at any time since 1917 – that soundbite is so old I think it was written in 1917 – and so on.

At last, Obama gets in a zinger:

You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.... This isn't a game of Battleship.

I nearly laughed, so that's an improvement.

The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald is providing a running commentary on the debate. He notes that both candidates are keen to grasp any opportunity to talk about domestic policy, despite this being the foreign policy debate.

Both candidates are eager to ignore the topic of this debate - foreign policy - in order to talk about the economy because they perceive, accurately, that this is what most voters care about, and because they don't really have much to disagree in the foreign policy area. And so they are now dispensing with any pretense and regurgitating their economics debate.

But US foreign policy actually does have a significant relationship to the economy- namely, the massive military, the constant aggression, war and occupation, the hundreds of military bases around the world all drain resources away from far more constructive purposes - but neither of these two candidates will dare to question any of those imperial premises, so they can't actually address the prime economic impact of US foreign policy.

Asked finally how he will pay for a bigger US military, Romney invites Bob Schieffer to visit his website for more details.

So far Bob Schieffer is making Jim Lehrer seem like he was on crack.

At some point Bob Schieffer realises where he is and says "Now let me get back to foreign policy..." Just a minute says Romney, and insists on blathering on about Massachusetts schools. And the scholarships.

"We have heard this in some of the other debates," says Bob Schieffer, who sounds puzzled.

So according to Mitt Romney, the answer to the question "What is America's role in the world?" is to repeat his five point jobs creation plan. Including bashing teachers' unions. Not quite sure about the connection there. Or small businesses for that matter.

This is taking the whole "I'll answer the question my way" concept to a new level.

Question: How was the weather Governor Romney?

Romney: I'll tell you what the weather needs. Small businesses.

Now Obama is talking about teaching math in small class sizes, again not quite a foreign policy issue, traditionally.

Now Romney just mentioned 23 million people being unemployed as a foreign policy issue.

Romney then does a lot of flag waving about the US military, berates Obama for doing nothing about the Iran democracy movement, and smiles.

There's a lot of talking point being rolled out here, and Romney doesn't seem very comfortable getting away from his happy place on the economy.

Romney's tack so far in this debate seems to be to say that he would do pretty much exactly what the Obama White House has done, except somehow he'd done it better.

Romney has now shifted on to the economy somehow. "In nowhere in the world is America's influence greater than it was four years ago," says Romney. Oh really? How does one measure such things?

Larry Sabato, the world's finest source of Larry Sabato, is more excited by this debate so far than I am.

Funny, for all the Republican rhetoric about what US foreign policy should be in the Middle East, here Mitt Romney is all about bringing everyone together in Syria, holding meetings and so on. Flow charts, maybe? This all sounds suspiciously milque-toast and leading from behindy. He'll be going to the UN security council next.

After a few minutes of this, Bob Schieffer wakes up and realises that the young people are still talking, so he says: Syria?

"Ultimately, Syrians are going to have to resolve their own future," says Obama, which is a nice way of saying: nothing.

What we can't do is give heavy weapons to the Syrian opposition, says Obama.

Oh no, says Romney, we need to make sure those arms don't get into the wrong hands.

Mitt Romney thinks that the US can lead Syrian anti-government forces. "We are in the leadership role," says Obama, listing a few things.

Romney is bickering about when he said what, where, until Obama pulls the rug out:

Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief, you've got to be clear to our allies and enemies about what we mean.

Barack Obama is insisting on mentioning Mitt Romney's past policy positions, which as we have learned is usually a losing proposition, since Mitt usually ignores all that.

"What we need to do is provide strong, steady leadership," says Obama.

"Attacking me is not an agenda," says Romney, who is very disappointed at the tone of politics that has crept into this political debate.

Obama accuses Romney of being "all over the place" in policy terms. "My strategy is pretty straight forward, to go after the bad guys," says Romney who then starts talking about "giving them more economic development".

Again Mitt Romney mentions Mali, which is a 200% increase in mentions of Mali in the history of American presidential debates.

"Molly has been taken over by al-Qaida type individuals," says Romney. Molly? Oh, Mali.

Anyway, things are simply awful. "We can't kill our way out of this mess," says Romney, in what is a remarkably blando answer.

Many Republicans will be disappointed at the "killing our way out of this mess" option being taken off the table there by Romney.

The first question, surprise surprise, is on Libya. Bob Schieffer's question has taken about five minutes already. And the candidates are asked to "give their thoughts," which seems kind of bland.

Romney starts and tries to crack a joke about their Al Smith dinner thing at the weekend. Always trying to ramp up those likeability poll numbers, huh Mitt?

And here we go: Bob Schieffer welcomes the two men on stage, who shakes hands. Smiles all round.

Tonight they are all sitting at a table. It's very high tech.

San Francisco Giants have added another run, it's 2-0. Well the last time they won the World Series was a bucket of cold body waste for the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections, if you want historical parallels.

And Chicago (Obama) are beating the Lions (Michigan so Romney) 7-0.

Moderator Bob Schieffer comes out and tells the audience that if they make noise, then they hate America. "We want a debate that is worthy of the greatest country of the world," he says.

Michelle Obama is wearing a silver-gray number, while Ann Romney is in forest green. I'm in a circa 2009 J Crew ensemble, which is a little worn at the cuffs.

It's the usual stuff pre-debate stuff: no cheering, no harrumphing, and no checking the Giants-Cardinals game (which the Cardinals are winning 1-0 in the second inning).

Also, where's Tagg Romney? In case he's planning on rushing the stage, as he wanted to at the last debate. Not here tonight, it seems, although Josh is in the audience.

Update: in case anyone cares, all the Romney boys are here, taking a break from fighting crime.

If you refresh your live-blog page you can see live streaming video of the debate hall, brought to you via our friends at PBS Newshour and Ustream.

The warm-up stuff is surprisingly interesting, although right now it's just people milling about looking lost.

Before we start, here are some of the smartest questions being posed by Guardian readers when we asked for their ideas for tonight's debate:

• Nations such as China, India and Brazil are perceived as being in the ascendant, internationally – what effect, if any, do you think this will have on the unshakeable doctrine of American exceptionalism which is held with such ubiquity, how do you think America will adapt to such change?

• On what credibly lawful basis do you insist on the Executive's power to use deadly force, against US citizens and non-US citizens alike?

• Do you believe that the War on Drugs is the right way forward and should continue?

And this beauty:

• Should Donald Trump's toupée be listed as a UN World Heritage Site?

There's still time to join in.

At last, some British common sense has arrived at the presidential debate, as my colleague Ewen MacAskill reports:

Finally, finally, in the Spin Room someone who knows about foreign affairs, former British diplomat Carne Ross. He is in Boca Raton to provide some post-debate commentary for Al-Jazeera. Ross had been at the UN mission in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and later spoke out, contradicting the official government line, saying there had been no evidence of a WMD threat.

Ross seems unimpressed with Mitt Romney's foreign policy, seeing little difference from Obama, speaking in generalities about a supposed golden age in the 20th century when the US was all-powerful. "Romney's policy on the Middle East does not stand up to scrutiny," Ross said. "Does anyone believe Chris Stevens would be alive if the Republicans had been in power?" Ross thought the Obama administration had handled Egypt well, getting the balance about right.

He saw one area in which there is a clear distinction between Obama and Romney as Israel, with relations between Obama and Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu at rock bottom. Summing up, Ross said: "There is no appetite here [in America] for military adventures. It is not 2002."

View image in fullscreen

Things are finally underway: not at Lynn University, which is somewhere in Florida where tonight's debate is being held, but in San Francisco where the Giants are playing the St Louis Cardinals for the right to get beaten by the Detroit Tigers in the World Series (maybe?).

Fox's broadcast channels will be showing the baseball and not the debate tonight, so viewing figures may be down a little as a result.

If you wish you may like to dip into our live-blogging of what was Jane Austen's favourite sport right here.

In the pre-spin room, which we should call it since the debate hasn't even started, the Guardian's Ewen MacAskill hears from Jim Messina rebutting rumours the Obama campaign was pulling out of another state:

Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina came out into the Spin Room and was immediately mobbed by journalists. It was difficult to hear him from the outer edge of the gaggle of reporters but he attempted to put paid to persistent rumours that the Obama campaign has written off Florida and will no longer be devoting lots of resources to it. Messina said: "It will be very close."

Asked if there would have to be a recount, as in 2000, Messina shot back: "No. I expect to win." He cited the huge advantage the Obama campaign holds among Latinos and also its lead in terms of voter registration.

I have no idea what it all means but Twitter has tonight launched a fancy new thing that tells you stuff.

Right now Barack Obama is up two since yesterday and Mitt Romney is down three. Or something! The key thing is that movement is happening.

Well I think that's clear.

But all these polls are telling us something useful, right?

Maybe not.

Never mind "peak oil," have we reached "peak poll"?

Which leads to the inevitable:

My colleagues at Guardian HQ in New York City have sorted out six key takeaways from the debates so far – and here's three of them:

Only 17 questions, yes, just 17 questions, have been asked so far of the presidential candidates.

Domestic policy has gotten far more play than foreign policy by a count of 16:1. The question about the Benghazi attacks during Tuesday's town hall debate was the only foreign policy question that night.

Even more proof that Obama doubled down last Tuesday – he and Romney doubled the number of attacks made on each other, with Obama clocking 27 hits to Romney's 25.

You can read the rest and more detail right here.

There has been talk about the Romney campaign shifting resources out of North Carolina as if it's a done deal.

The follow-on rumour was that the Obama campaign had also started shifting resources away from the Tarheel State. Campaign manager Jim Messina is having none of it.

It started from a comment by Democratic strategist Paul Begala on CNN this afternoon.

There's a new CBS News poll on foreign policy out just before tonight's debate, which has Obama on 48% and Romney 46% nationally:

According to the poll, conducted from October 17-20, the president leads Romney 50-41% among likely voters on the question of who would do a better job on general foreign policy. Likely voters also viewed Mr Obama as stronger on terrorism and security: 49% said Mr Obama would do a better job, and 42% said Romney would. On U.S. policy toward Iran, Mr Obama edged Romney 46% to 43% among likely voters.

On US policy toward China, a frequent Romney discussion point on the campaign trail, the two candidates are even at 44%. On Israel, Romney has an edge over the president, with 46% to Mr Obama's 42%.

Mr Obama also holds a lead on which candidate would better handle an international crisis: 38% of likely voters said they had a lot of confidence in him to do so, compared with 30% who expressed the same level of confidence in Romney. Still, a majority of voters express at least some confidence in both the President (62%) and Romney's ability (58%) to handle an international crisis.

It's nice that they call the president Mr Obama while the challenger is just Romney.

Meanwhile, the Guardian's Ewen MacAskill runs into his old friend, the ubiquitous Republican congressman Pete King, who also attending tonight's debate:

I had assumed that Congressman Pete King, head of the House homeland security committee, had been attending the debate on Long Island last week because he was on home turf. But no. He is at Boca Raton too, busy in the Spin Room on behalf of Mitt Romney.

What can we expect tonight? Romney got into trouble in the Long Island debate when he got caught up in detail of the Benghazi consulate attack. According to King, Romney is going to focus on the big picture issues, probably sensible given the limited interest of most voters in foreign affairs.

"I think Mitt Romney will go on the importance of leadership and Obama's confused policy rather than the details of Benghazi. He will speak about how al-Qaida is still strong and five weeks after the attack on Benghazi we are still not getting the true story."

Romney wants to talk about the economy rather than foreign affairs, awkward given the 90 minutes are devoted to foreign affairs. So how is he going to do this? "He is going to try to make a connection between the economy and foreign affairs. You can't have a strong country unless you have a strong economy," says King.

The Guardian's Chris McGreal is in Boca Raton for tonight's debate, and he gives us his preview of the difficult international subjects that are unlikely to come up tonight:

Mitt Romney has a lot to to throw at Barack Obama this evening. But also telling about Romney's world view, Obama's policies and how America regards some key foreign policy issues is what you will not hear.

You will not hear Romney ask Obama why he hasn't made progress toward Palestinian independence or managed to curb Israel's inexorable expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and colonisation of Arab land. It's not very likely that Israel's own nuclear arsenal will come up in the inevitable criticism of Obama's handling of Iran's as yet non-existent atom bombs.

You won't hear the Republican candidate demand the president justify the kill list he endorses each Tuesday which names those sentenced without trial or a modicum of due process to be obliterated by American drones. There won't even be a question about the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocents also butchered by the unseen and unmanned war planes.

Neither will you hear Romney press Obama over the dubious legal process underway at Guantanamo where military judges have blocked alleged terrorists on trial for their lives from talking about the tortures they were subjected to by the CIA and American military.

And then there are the friends of perpetual US administrations who get a pass on America's self proclaimed commitment to freedom. Don't expect Romney to pin Obama down over relations with Gulf oil sheikhs or African dictators with lots of the black stuff under their feet.

Bizarre fact-ette about tonight's presidential debate: the leading corporate sponsor of the Commission on Presidential Debates is none other than Belgian brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev, the proud owners of Budweiser:

A-B has been involved in the debates since 1992, when Washington University was hosting one and asked the brewer for help. A-B agreed, and has been an official sponsor since 1996. It's not like sponsoring the Fiesta Bowl; these aren't the “Anheuser-Busch InBev Presidential Debates.” The brewer's involvement is more subtle. But it's there.

Frankly this brings a whole new meaning to the idea of a presidential debate drinking game. And let's be honest, if there was a lightening round involving candidates having to skull, that would certainly liven things up. Although of course Mitt Romney doesn't drink booze so he'd have to drink whatever exciting no-alcohol alternative InBev makes.

With just two weeks to go until the last day of voting in the US presidential election, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama meet in Boca Raton, Florida, for the third and final debate and tonight's subject is foreign policy.

After Romney decisively won the first debate in Denver on 3 October, and Obama staged a recovery in the second debate last week, tonight's match-up is something of a tie-breaker although the polls show few signs of Romney's progress since the first debate being arrested.

The second debate was notable for Romney uncharacteristically stumbling when he accused Obama of backing away from calling the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi an "act of terror," with debate moderator Candy Crowley intervening to correct Romney and spare his further blushes.

Libya is almost certain to be on the menu tonight, along with Iran, Israel and the state of US relations with Russia and China, all stalwart planks of the Romney campaign. But what else will make an appearance?

The debate itself starts at 9pm ET, which is 2am in the UK and Europe, and we'll be covering all the action before and after right here, along with streaming video of the debate itself.

The Guardian as usual will have its crack team of reporters and political junkies hard at work to bring your thoughts, observations and feedback – and you can join in yourself in our comments section below.

In the meantime you can catch up with the rest of the day's action through the excellent liveblog of my colleague Tom McCarthy right here.