They went at each other like prize-fighters in a ring. When it was over, President Bush was pumped up and beaming, ready to seize the victor’s crown.

Anxious Republicans had feared last night’s second presidential debate in Missouri would be "do or die" for Mr Bush after a vote-losing first encounter against Democrat challenger John Kerry. Happily for them, he did. But did he do enough to win?

Mr Bush began the debate so aggressively that he seemed to have overdosed on testosterone. It didn’t sound good. The smirk was gone but the foot tapped in irritation. At times he seemed to be pounding the questioners in the hall rather than his opponent.

As the debate wore on, Mr Bush relaxed. He joked, "Wanna buy some wood?" to the audience after Mr Kerry accused him of getting a tax cut from a timber business. He winked at the end of one reply. At its close, he said the debate had been "enjoyable" as if he meant it and glad-handed the crowd.

He drove home the one certain advantage he enjoys in the polls: Americans would rather share a beer with him than Mr Kerry. For a teetotaller like Mr Bush, it is no mean quality.

Mr Kerry, in contrast, was condescending and haughty. He repeated monotonously, "I have a plan" for everything: Iraq, Bin Laden, taxes, health. He name-dropped about his famous friends such as "Chris Reeve" – Superman to you and I – Michael J Fox and far too many generals to mention. He made the surprising admission, once known only to the cognoscenti, that he was a lawyer. Ah, the penny dropped, so that is why Kerry is a good debater.

In a week in which Mr Bush has been pummelled by a report on Saddam’s non-existent WMDs, criticism from former envoy Paul Bremer about too few troops in Iraq and disappointingly low figures for jobs growth, Mr Kerry missed the opportunity to win handily. Even so, he was well-informed, mostly crisp in his answers and confident enough of the bad news from Iraq to morph into a clear anti-war candidate, instead of a flip-flopping straddler.

An ABC News instant poll handed victory to Mr Kerry by a whisker: 44 to Bush’s 41, with 13 per cent declaring a draw. The Sunday Times columnist Andrew Sullivan agreed with that response on his blog,

"Stylistically, Kerry seemed, well, calmer. His parries were cleaner than Bush’s; his mind seemed more complicated, but not to the point of complete paralysis…All in all, I’d say that Kerry had a miniscule edge in both the substantive and stylistic contest. But the fact that Bush seemed alive and kicking as a candidate will help him regain some initiative as well."

The rightwing commentator Jonah Goldberg live-blogging the debate, began with his head in his hands after despairing of Mr Bush’s performance in the first debate. Initially he feared last night’s was going the same way. Readers soon e-mailed him to buck up.

"Keep telling me Bush is winning, kicking butt etc. I just don't see that. If you imagine you're a swing voter it's at best a draw so far, I think," Goldberg replied midway through the night.

By the debate’s end, Goldberg concluded: "So I dunno. If I was scoring this as a debate coach, I guess I'd give it to Kerry. But the first rule of presidential debates is that that's the last way to judge them….On the more important issue of who was the more likable guy, I think Bush had Kerry beat. The crowd, it seemed, like Bush a lot more."

I would go with that verdict. Mr Bush got a bounce at the Republican convention because so many great guys lined up to endorse him: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani, even John McCain, his old presidential rival. Seeing him whiny and peevish in the first debate was a huge anti-climax. Last night he re-opened his lead on likeability.

Times Recommends

• A track to Shangri-La: Bhutan gets first rail link
• Avatar takings hit $600m in ten days
• Bomb disposal squad is Times’s Team of the Year