SAN ANTONIO — Sen. Ted Cruz Rafael (Ted) Edward CruzObama praises Beto O'Rourke: 'Impressive young man' Dem bundler: Donors waiting on 2020 commitments until Beto O'Rourke makes decision The Hill's Morning Report — GOP victorious in Florida while Dems say `Sunbelt strategy’ looks bright for 2020 MORE (R-Texas) and Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) clashed in a heated second debate on a cold and bitter night in San Antonio, less than three weeks out from the midterm elections. 
 
 O’Rourke went on the attack right at the start of the debate, framing Cruz as “dishonest” and someone who abandoned Texas to run for president. But Cruz continued to aggressively go after the Democratic congressman’s record, which he says doesn’t line up with deep-red Texas. 
 
 The contentious showdown again highlighted the starkest differences between the candidates, particularly on immigration and health care. 
 
 Here are the five takeaways from the fiery — and likely final — Senate debate in the Lone Star State. 
 
 O’Rourke goes on offense 
 
 O’Rourke didn’t pull any punches in this debate, especially with polls consistently showing him trailing Cruz. 
 
 Unlike in the first debate, the Democratic congressman came out swinging from the beginning and repeatedly hammered Cruz throughout the hourlong debate. 
 
 Right out the gate, O’Rourke sought to highlight the major differences between them, starting with election security. O’Rourke accused Cruz of being incapable of standing up to the president on both this issue and also on tariffs. 
 
 “He voted against safeguarding the integrity of our ballot box,” O’Rourke said. “Our junior senator won’t stand up to President Trump Donald John TrumpTrump: WHCA picking non-comedian for headliner a 'good first step' Five takeaways from Mississippi's Senate debate Watergate’s John Dean: Nixon would tell Trump 'he's going too far' MORE.” 
 
 The attacks only got more heated throughout the night. O’Rourke brought back President Trump’s past pejorative nickname for Cruz from the 2016 Republican primary race, arguing that the GOP senator fits the name “Lyin’ Ted.” 
 
 "This is what you can expect over the course of debate," O'Rourke said. "Sen. Cruz isn’t going to be honest. He’s dishonest." 
 
 "That’s why [Trump's] nickname stuck — because it’s true." 
 
 But Cruz, a seasoned debater, countered each of O’Rourke’s attacks. In a familiar line of attack, Cruz continued to cast the Democrat’s voting record in Congress as “out of step in Texas.” 
 
 The GOP senator even noted the change in tone since their last debate in Dallas. 
 
 "Well it’s clear Congressman O'Rourke's pollsters told him to come out on the attack," Cruz said. 
 
 Cruz on defense over GOP tax law 
 
 Republicans are hoping that the GOP’s tax law passed last year will be a boon for them in the midterms. But Cruz was left explaining his support for the GOP’s biggest legislative achievement since Trump took office. 
 
 Cruz trumpeted his support for the tax cuts, while talking about the need for paying down the deficit and debt. 
 
 He called the growing deficit and debt “immoral,” but argued that it wasn’t due to the tax cuts passed late last year. 
 
 But in a notable moment of the debate, one of the moderators interrupted Cruz’s answer to mention past comments he made while running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016. 
 
 “Respectfully, Sen. Cruz, in Iowa, you talked about how bad the deficit is.” 
 
 When asked if the tax law increases the deficit and debt, Cruz responded, “No, it wouldn’t. That projection is wrong.” 
 
 Cruz continued that measures that spur economic growth — like the tax law — don’t contribute to that. He said that the government can fix the “out-of-control spending” in Congress by imposing things like congressional term limits and passing a balanced budget amendment. 
 
 For his part, O’Rourke decried that tax cuts as "disproportionately” benefiting corporations. 
 
 Cruz gets upper hand in health-care exchange 
 
 Health care has been a prominent issue this election cycle — and one that Democrats believe is a winning issue, especially when it comes to protections for those with pre-existing conditions. 
 
 But there was no mention of the popular ObamaCare provision in this debate. Instead, moderators focused more on “Medicare for all,” which gave Cruz an opening to tie O’Rourke to a democratic socialist. 
 
 Cruz accused the Democratic congressman of wanting “socialized medicine” and Sen. Bernie Sanders Bernard (Bernie) SandersOvernight Health Care: Drug industry nervous about Grassley | CDC warns public not to eat romaine lettuce | Sanders unveils new drug pricing bill Sanders and Khanna have a plan to lower your drug prices 2020 Democrats challenge Trump's use of troops at Mexico border MORE’s (I-Vt.) Medicare for all proposal. 
 
 “O’Rourke supports Bernie Sanders’s socialized medicine,” Cruz said, adding that it would “triple your taxes.” The GOP senator pointed to examples of other countries who use that system, arguing that it would lead to long wait times and that the costs would be “immense.” 
 
 But O’Rourke stood his ground for wanting affordable and quality universal health care, especially for working families. He said that there are different approaches to achieving that goal, noting Medicare for all, expanded Medicaid and “the ability for people to pay into Medicare.” 
 
 “All you hear from Sen. Cruz is what we should be afraid of,” O’Rourke said, pointing to Cruz previously shutting down the government “perhaps because too many people had health care.” 
 
 Immigration still the biggest wedge issue 
 
 Like the last debate, immigration continues to be the biggest separator between the two candidates running to be a senator of a border state. 
 
 Republicans running across the country have seized on this issue as a way to draw contrasts with their Democratic opponents. And in Texas, a Tuesday poll from CNN found that immigration is a top priority for voters in the Senate race. That same poll found Cruz leading O’Rourke by 7 points among likely voters. 
 
 Trump’s signature campaign promise of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border yet again highlighted the differences between them. 
 
 O'Rourke said building a border wall won’t resolve the country’s immigration issues. 
 
 "No wall is going to solve legitimate security issues, but smart policy will," he said, noting that he introduced a bill with Sen. John Cornyn John CornynDivisions in GOP may leave Trump priority in Senate limbo Senate barrels toward showdown over Trump's court picks Dem gains put Sunbelt in play for 2020 MORE (R-Texas) that would invest more money in ports of entry in the U.S. 
 
 Cruz said he's "led the fight to secure the border and building the wall." Cruz continued to make the case that O’Rourke’s liberal record is out of touch with what Texans want. 
 
 "Let me say there's no race in this country where there is a starker divide on immigration," Cruz said. 
 
 Candidates make their final pitch 
 
 In a bitter debate from start to finish, both candidates laid out distinct visions for why they should be elected in their closing statements. Those respective visions essentially boiled down to "hope and change" versus continued progress. 
 
 O’Rourke said the country and Texans need "inspiration" and hope when Americans and their government are more divided than ever. 
 
 "Whether we remain the inspiration of the world is an open question right now," O’Rourke said, saying he’s been inspired to "transcend the obstacles" and fight for so-called Dreamers and universal health care. 
 
 Meanwhile, Cruz made the case for familiarity, arguing that electing O’Rourke would disrupt the economic growth in Texas that’s been made over his past six years in office. 
 
 "This is a choice about keeping the boom going," Cruz said. "We have the lowest Hispanic unemployment, the lowest African-American unemployment. Why would we want to screw that up?" 
 
 While there was visible tension, both candidates bemoaned the hyperpartisanship gripping the country. And there was a moment of emotion — and agreement — when it came to parenting while campaigning. 
 
 Cruz gave an emotional answer about the difficulty of being away from his children. O’Rourke, who is also the father of young children, said Cruz’s answer resonated with him. 
 
 Jessie Hellmann and Tess Bonn contributed. ||||| (CNN) Before the midterm elections, CNN Opinion asked commentators to weigh in on the races they were watching most closely. We have asked those commentators to assess the outcome of those races -- and what they mean for the future of American politics. The views expressed are solely their own. 
 
 Raul Reyes: Chances are, we have not heard the last from Beto 
 
 On Tuesday, just hours before the polls closed in Texas, Beyonce made a surprise endorsement for Democrat Beto O'Rourke over Republican Ted Cruz in the race for Texas senator. Maybe Queen Bey should have weighed in a little sooner. Maybe O'Rourke should have run a more traditional campaign, instead of refusing to run negative ads. Maybe O'Rourke should have worked harder at winning over Republican voters, rather than focusing on identifying new voters. 
 
 The "what-if's" will no doubt linger around O'Rourke's candidacy for a long time, as incumbent Cruz defeated him in the Lone Star State by single digits. Though O'Rourke excited voters in a way reminiscent of Barack Obama, this was not Beto's night. His narrow defeat was a heartbreaker for Democrats who have long dreamed of turning this state blue. 
 
 Still, this has been an extraordinary campaign, one that O'Rourke can and should be proud of. If he had run a conventional campaign, it likely would not have captured national attention, inspired Texas Democrats and made "Beto" a household name . O'Rourke should be pleased with the fact that he has awakened the state's Democrats. Just the fact that, until around 10 p.m. Tuesday night, the race was seen as a tossup is an accomplishment in itself. 
 
 O'Rourke has shown that a progressive Democrat can mount a serious challenge in a red state. He has brought in thousands of first-time voters, among them many Latinos and millennials. And he did this while refraining from personal attacks and staying true to his inclusive values. 
 
 Ted Cruz likely benefitted from the structural electoral advantages that Republicans enjoy in Texas -- as well as a healthy dose of political tribalism. But thanks to his charisma and sharp political instincts, O'Rourke has made a substantial impact on Texas politics. He is well-positioned to challenge Sen. John Cornyn, or even consider a presidential run. Chances are, we have not heard the last from Beto. 
 
 Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today board of contributors. Follow him on Twitter @RaulAReyes 
 
 Jennifer L. Lawless: Three lessons from Texas 23 
 
 Republican incumbent Will Hurd's win over Gina Jones in Texas' 23rd Congressional District race demonstrates three important lessons about the midterms. 
 
 First, TX-23 is one of the 23 House districts that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but which sent a Republican to Congress. Both parties were laser-focused on this year's race because it was prime real estate to flip. The fact that the GOP held it yet the Democrats still found a path to control the House highlights the importance of broadening the electoral map. A loss in TX-23 would have been devastating for Democrats had fewer districts been in play. 
 
 Second, a compelling profile can only take a candidate so far. Gina Jones' background was a progressive Democratic voter's dream come true. She's young. She's gay. She's a woman of color. She's an Iraq War veteran. But even if she motivated and energized Democrats, there weren't enough of them in the district. 
 
 Third, Hurd's win isn't synonymous with a Donald Trump victory. Hurd isn't a Trump acolyte. He differs from the President on DACA and the border wall (not surprising given that the district is 55% Hispanic). And as a former CIA official, he's condemned the administration for how it handled Russian interference in the 2016 election. Hurd didn't embrace Trump and managed to eke out a win, probably to the president's chagrin. 
 
 TX-23 reminds us that even in a nationalized election, some politics are still local. 
 
 Jennifer L. Lawless is the Commonwealth Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia. 
 
 Julian Zelizer: Trumpism was victorious in Tennessee 
 
 Tennessee produced an important victory for Trumpism, a Republican agenda that revolves around nativism, tariffs and nationalism -- as well as an unorthodox style of governance. The state's Senate race was perceived by both parties as a good test of what kind of impact Trump was having in territory that was friendly to him in 2016. 
 
 Democrats were hoping that the former governor, Phil Bredesen, a moderate and beloved politician, could defeat the conservative Representative Marsha Blackburn, a close ally of Trump. 
 
 And Bredesen put up a good fight. He stuck to whatever center still exists in American politics -- supporting Judge Brett Kavanaugh and saying he wouldn't vote for Sen. Chuck Schumer as the party leader. But the fact that he could not pull this off will be deflating. 
 
 If the Senate remains in Republican hands, the administration and the Republican leadership will certainly read into the results signs that the last month's aggressive partisan strategy worked -- play to the base, be as rightward as possible and do not cede anything to moderation. 
 
 The message from Tennessee will also have an effect on Democrats, as they start sorting through what kind of candidates they want to run in 2020 -- with an inevitable battle between those who favor centrists and those who want progressives. Bredesen's inability to pull off a victory in Tennessee means there is little hope that anyone else in the party can. 
 
 With Tennessee, even in an evening when Republicans suffered in swing House districts, score one for Trumpism. 
 
 Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and author of "The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress and the Battle for the Great Society." 
 
 Sally Kohn: Georgia's 6th District reminds us why every vote matters 
 
 When Democrat Lucy McBath announced her candidacy to unseat Republican incumbent Karen Handel in Georgia's 6th, no one really thought the flight attendant turned gun control advocate had a chance. After all, Handel had won her seat in the fiercely contested special election against Democrat Jon Ossoff in June 2017. While Ossoff broke fundraising records and almost became a national rock star, Handel ultimately won by more than 3 percentage points. 
 
 Georgia's 6th District -- the one that once sent Republican Newt Gingrich to Congress -- is historically red and 60% white. McBath is a black woman who rose to prominence as a voice in the Black Lives Matter movement after her 17-year-old son, Jordan Davis, was shot and killed by a white man at a gas station after an argument over the volume of music playing in the teen's car. 
 
 So what happened in the election? As of Thursday morning, McBath won. What's more, it appears turnout in the district this midterm election nearly matches that of 2016 , which is highly unusual. 
 
 In addition, a strong base of volunteers showed up for both McBath and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, at the top of the state ticket. What really seems to distinguish this election is the level of sustained and enthusiastic grassroots support across the country. Trump supporters may have shown up in big numbers to attend rallies in airport hangars, but Democrats knocked on millions of doors, made millions of calls and mobilized in ways that will continue to shake politics in this country. That surge of progressive grassroots action is just beginning. George Goehl, the director of People's Action, rightly called the midterm results a "people's wave." 
 
 That's in a state where allegations of voter suppression were widely reported, especially after Georgia's secretary of state and Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp canceled more than 1.4 million voter registrations since 2012, according to The Associated Press . Republicans and Trump made clear in this election that they're willing to fight dirty by spreading hate or actively discouraging people from voting. And the Georgia 6th race reminds us why every vote matters. 
 
 Sally Kohn is a CNN political commentator and author of the book, "The Opposite of Hate." 
 
 Jeff Yang: Never underestimate a well-run Democratic campaign 
 
 In a night where the Democratic Party's hope for a blue tidal wave was tempered by a redder-than-expected reality, Antonio Delgado's victory in New York's 19th Congressional District was a sterling example of how the traditional combination of an appealing candidate, methodical grassroots organizing, and, of course, an ample war chest is still the formula for success in demographically challenging areas. 
 
 Delgado, running as a pragmatic progressive in a rural, 84% white district that Trump won, set incumbent John Faso back on his heels with his ability to fund-raise and with competitive results in early polls. 
 
 Republicans tried to fight him by playing the racial fear card, running an ad referring to Delgado as an ex-rapper whose profane lyrics and left-wing politics showed him to be out of touch with the values of the community -- obscuring Delgado's status as a Harvard-educated lawyer and Rhodes scholar. 
 
 The ads may have backfired; at the least, they led to articles shaming Faso's clumsy attempt at race-baiting in the New York Times, Washington Post, New York magazine and local papers like the Times-Union. This allowed Delgado to avoid directly responding to the attacks, while focusing on more pertinent concerns for the district, such as health care, a topic on which Faso, who had voted to kill Obamacare, was already vulnerable. The victory polishes Delgado's status as a potential rising star in the Democratic Party -- which the party needs, given its lackluster bench going forward into 2020 and beyond. 
 
 Jeff Yang is a frequent contributor to CNN Opinion, a featured writer for Quartz and other publications, and the co-host of the podcast "They Call Us Bruce." 
 
 Scott Jennings: Progressives cannot win in Kentucky 
 
 Republican incumbent Andy Barr in Kentucky's 6th Congressional District found himself in a dogfight with Democratic challenger Amy McGrath, a former fighter pilot who came home to storm her primary and give Democrats hope in a district that covers Kentucky's beautiful bluegrass region. 
 
 But Barr brought in a wingman -- President Donald Trump -- and defeated McGrath in one of the closest congressional races in recent Kentucky history. 
 
 Trump rallied for Barr in Madison County, where thousands packed an arena on the campus of Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond. And when the votes were tallied on election night Madison delivered for Barr, giving him 59% of the vote and a nearly 7,000-vote margin. 
 
 Republican turnout in the district's rural counties overcame McGrath's strong showing in Fayette County, the urban heart of the district. There was some Republican handwringing over whether Barr should cleave so closely to Trump, but the campaign made the correct call and used the President in just the right way, giving Barr his happy landing. 
 
 This campaign showed the value of opposition research. Insiders say McGrath had a double-digit polling lead during the summer, but crashed back to earth when the Barr campaign unleashed tapes of her talking to liberal donors at out-of-state fundraisers. 
 
 "I am further left, I am more progressive, than anyone in the state of Kentucky," McGrath told her donors in one speech, a clip of which appeared in numerous sidewinders fired off by Barr and the Republicans in their ad barrage. Note to future candidates: everything you say anywhere might follow you home. 
 
 McGrath's strong showing could make her a player for a future contest, perhaps a state office in 2019 or a run for US Senate in 2020 or 2022 when senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul next face the voters, respectively. But given the damage the opposition research did to McGrath's image in a purplish district like Kentucky's sixth, it's hard to imagine her words playing any better throughout the redder portions of Kentucky. 
 
 Trump will be at the top of the ticket in 2020, and his alliance with McConnell will make it hard for any self-professed progressive to overcome the President and Senate majority leader in a state that's among the most receptive to the #MAGA agenda. 
 
 Scott Jennings, a CNN contributor, is a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and former campaign adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell. He is a partner at RunSwitch Public Relations in Louisville, Kentucky. Follow him on Twitter @ScottJenningsKY. 
 
 Jen Psaki: Sometimes the national party gets it right 
 
 On a night when Texas sent Ted Cruz back to the Senate, his opponent still made a significant contribution to a big democratic night. Beto O'Rourke's grassroots turnout operation,and energizing message helped bring more Democrats to the polls and helped Lizzie Fletcher defeat John Culberson in Texas' 7th Congressional District. 
 
 Fletcher ran a smart race focused on health care and Culberson's votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And she successfully appealed to the anger and frustration of women in the Houston suburbs, including independent and Republican women, who were eager to send a message to President Donald Trump. 
 
 This race also showed that, once again, Democrats can come together after a bruising primary contest -- even one where the national party ham-handedly weighed in with opposition research against the primary candidate they viewed as weaker. Whether or not it was the right tactic, the Democrats ended up with the nominee they wanted and a nominee who won a crucial southern seat. 
 
 Jen Psaki, a CNN political commentator, was the White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman during the Obama administration. She is vice president of communications and strategy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Follow her at @jrpsaki. 
 
 Robby Soave: It's tough out there for third-party candidates 
 
 Former Gov. Gary Johnson came up well short in his third-party bid for New Mexico's Senate seat -- a familiar outcome for the Libertarian presidential aspirant. 
 
 Johnson, who previously earned 3% of the national popular vote in the 2016 presidential election, entered New Mexico's Senate race in early August. He took an early lead over Republican candidate Mark Rich, but trailed incumbent Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich. An early Emerson College poll put Johnson at 21% vs. Rich's 11% and Heinrich's 39%. That turned out to be the high-water mark for Johnson; his support collapsed in subsequent polls. News outlets called the race on Tuesday night for Heinrich. 
 
 It's tough out there for third-party candidates. Dissatisfied voters who plan to spurn the two major parties often come around and cast a lesser-of-two-evils vote for one or the other. Johnson, for instance, was polling at 10% at various points in 2016, but the final tally -- while still the strongest showing for a third-party candidate since Ross Perot -- was just over 3%. 
 
 Johnson's loss is not unexpected, but it's still a pity. An independent senator willing to challenge Trump and the Democratic Party would have been a welcome change of pace. Alas, the two-party duopoly is tough to break, no matter how many Americans would prefer a wider variety of choices. 
 
 Robby Soave writes for the libertarian magazine Reason . Follow him on Twitter @robbysoave 
 
 Haroon Moghul: Ojeda represented something unusual 
 
 I wanted Richard Ojeda to win, not just because he is a Democrat, but because he represented something as important as it is unusual. A one-time Trump supporter, the military veteran switched sides, not out of crass political calculation -- West Virginia, whose 3rd Congressional District he ran in, is obviously not a blue state -- but out of genuine conviction. He believed, and rightly, that the President was not keeping his promises, that his fellow West Virginians were better represented by a party that cared for and fought for them. Ojeda represented, in other words, the possibility of partisan fluidity. 
 
 It may be that, in a district where he had little, if any, realistic chance of victory, there is no larger lesson to be learned. It could be, though, that this speaks to a disquieting obstacle; that, come 2020, Democrats will be doomed by a terrible trinity: gerrymandering, an Electoral College that slights majorities and party loyalty impossible to transcend. 
 
 But in the same state where Ojeda lost to Carol Miller, the state Trump won by a whopping 42%, Democratic incumbent Sen. Joe Manchin held on. However, Manchin voted to confirm Kavanaugh. That's another kind of partisan fluidity. 
 
 Be careful what you wish for. 
 
 Haroon Moghul is Fellow in Jewish-Muslim Relations at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, and author of "How to be a Muslim: An American Story." 
 
 Errol Louis: DeSantis benefited from the Trump boost 
 
 Andrew Gillum's potential loss to Ron DeSantis in the race for Florida governor continues a pattern: Democrats, who have frequently carried the Sunshine State in presidential contests, have not won the governor's mansion since 1998, despite coming within 1% of victory three times. 
 
 The race was nasty from the very start, with DeSantis drawing criticism for warning supporters not to "monkey this up" by losing to Gillum -- a statement immediately condemned as racist by DeSantis critics. 
 
 Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, at first looked like the candidate to change the Democrats' luck. He led in 34 out of 37 polls leading up to election day; the final pre-election sounding by NBC News/Marist found Gillum leading DeSantis by a healthy 50% to 46%. 
 
 Gillum rolled up decent majorities in urban areas, including Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami and his base in Tallahassee. But last-minute campaigning by President Donald Trump boosted the turnout for DeSantis in Republican strongholds, as well as many suburban and exurban communities surrounding the Democratic cities. 
 
 One bright sign on the horizon for Democrats is the passage of a voter referendum that abolishes Florida's onerous practice of banning ex-felons from voting for life unless a special pardon was granted. The restoration of voting rights could add more than 1 million voters to the rolls. That could be a game-changer in a future race. 
 
 Errol Louis is the host of "Inside City Hall," a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel. 
 
 Tara Setmayer: It may be another generation before we see a New Jersey GOP Senator 
 
 Democratic incumbent Bob Medendez won his third term handily, despite his ethics-plagued tenure. His Republican challenger, Bob Hugin, tried to make the race a referendum on Menendez's scandals by spending $36 million of his own money in what became one of the nastiest Senate races in the country. Hugin spent millions on TV ads alone, hammering Menendez on his alleged corruption and outspending the incumbent two to one . But he could not overcome Trump's unpopularity in a state where the blue wave crashed ashore with a vengeance. 
 
 Hugin gave Democrats a scare when he pulled within single digits of Menendez, prompting the party to infuse almost $8 million into a race that shouldn't have been competitive in the first place. Menendez's ethical issues in office created lukewarm support for him within the party. Democrats were already in a tough spot defending multiple Senate seats in red states that Trump won in 2016. The last thing they wanted to do was spend that kind of money in a reliably blue state like New Jersey. It took home state elected officials like Senator Cory Booker and Governor Phil Murphy to use their political capital to convince reluctant Democrats to hold their noses and support Menendez. 
 
 Given how well Democrats performed in New Jersey, turning three long-time Republican congressional districts blue, it may be another generation before we see a GOP senator from the Garden State. 
 
 Tara Setmayer, a CNN political commentator, is the host of the "Honestly Speaking with Tara" podcast. Follow her on Twitter @tarasetmayer. ||||| CNN’s Chris Cuomo confronted Sen. Ted Cruz Rafael (Ted) Edward CruzCambridge Analytica announces it is shutting down Facebook to review for racial, anti-conservative biases The Hill's Morning Report: Frustration mounts as Republicans blow up tax message MORE (R-Texas) for slamming his Democratic rival for going by a nickname, noting that Cruz also doesn’t go by his given name. 
 
 Cruz’s campaign released a jingle Tuesday night mocking Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) for going by Beto instead of Robert. O'Rourke won the Democratic primary Tuesday night and will battle Cruz for his Senate seat. 
 
 “You go after Beto for his name. Beto is obviously a nickname — why?” Cuomo asked Cruz. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 “First of all, you didn’t like that dirty pool when you were running for president and the president called you ‘Lyin’ Ted,’ you didn’t like that kind of tactic,” Cuomo said. 
 
 “And you know what, your name is Rafael, you go by Ted but your middle name is Edward, that’s a more Anglicized version of it,” he continued. “He went the other way and has a more ethnic version of his name — why go after him? You’re both doing the same thing.” 
 
 “You’re absolutely right, my name is Rafael Edward Cruz,” Cruz replied. 
 
 He said that he was named after his father, also Rafael Cruz, a Cuban immigrant. 
 
 “In terms of the jingle, some of it is just have a sense of humor,” the senator said. 
 
 The jingle mocks O’Rourke for going by Beto. 
 
 "Liberal Robert wanted to fit in, so he changed his name to Beto and hid it with a grin," the song says. 
 
 O’Rourke wouldn’t comment on the jingle during an appearance on CNN’s "New Day" on Wednesday. 
 
 "I just don't think that's what folks in Texas want us to focus on,” he said. “We can get into name calling or talk about why the other person’s such an awful guy, or we can focus on the big things we want to do for the future of our country.” ||||| Beto O'Rourke, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas, at an event in Austin in September. (Erich Schlegel/Reuters) 
 
 No doubt about it: Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.) is a Democratic star the likes of which the party hasn’t seen in a Senate candidate in years. But is he too hot for the Democratic Party’s own good? 
 
 On Friday, his Senate campaign announced it raised $38 million in just the past three months. 
 
 That will go down in history. What O’Rourke raised in three months is what some presidential campaigns raise. It blasted through a fundraising record ($22 million in one quarter) that no Senate candidate has been able to touch in 18 years. 
 
 To put that money in perspective in Texas, $38 million was more than half of what O’Rourke — who was already raising insane sums of money — raised during the rest of his entire campaign. The $62 million he has raised so far is more than twice as much as his opponent, incumbent GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, has. 
 
 'It’s an astonishing number — and done with all people, no PACs," said Adam Bozzi with the End Citizens United PAC, which supports candidates like O’Rourke who have said no to political action money from special interests. O’Rourke’s campaign didn’t share much detail about his fundraising, but he did say the contributions averaged $47 from roughly 802,000 people, about half of whom were in Texas. 
 
 But that does not mean O'Rourke will win a Senate seat in Texas. He's still behind in the polls, and the fundamentals of the conservative state suggest it might not be ready to elect a Democrat to statewide office. 
 
 And if a fired-up Democratic base is so willing to pour money into big Senate races, you could argue that at least some of that money would be more useful going to fellow Democratic candidates in red-leaning states like North Dakota and West Virginia and Montana and Tennessee, all of whom have a much better chance of winning than O’Rourke does. 
 
 The Texas Senate race is still remarkably competitive. But let’s put this $38 million — and O’Rourke’s chances in Texas — in perspective. 
 
 He’s behind in the polls: O’Rourke hasn’t led in a single high-quality public poll since this race began. Some polls this spring and summer had the race too close to call. But since September, Cruz has been well ahead. A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Cruz ahead of O’Rourke by 9 percentage points, mirroring Republican private polling showing Cruz ahead. Polling closer to Election Day tends to be more accurate since more likely voters start paying attention. 
 
 Money can mean momentum, but it doesn’t always equal momentum: In 2014, Democrat Wendy Davis launched a buzzy run for governor in Texas. At one point she outraised her Republican opponent (though not nearly as much as O’Rourke is outpacing Cruz), earning her lots of national headlines and even more buzz. 
 
 She ended up losing the governor’s race by 20 points. It was the worst showing of a Democratic candidate for governor in the state in 16 years. 
 
 That’s not to say O’Rourke is going to lose as Davis did. But that a Democrat in Texas can raise tens of millions and still lose badly underscores our next point, that: 
 
 The fundamentals in the state still favor Republicans: There is plenty of evidence that Texas Democrats are motivated to vote in November — not an easy thing to do in a state where general elections are usually foregone conclusions for the Republican. 
 
 In this spring’s primary, Democrats doubled their turnout from 2014 to 2016, breaking 1 million voters. At the state level, Democrats are challenging Gov. Greg Abbott (R), 14 of 15 state Senate seats and nearly 90 percent of the state’s 150 state House seats. Texas Democrats haven’t put up that kind of defense in a quarter-century. 
 
 “The energy in the Lone Star State is palpable,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said. 
 
 But Republicans set their own primary vote record with 1.5 million votes. And they didn’t have to stretch that much to do it; 1.5 million votes was a slight uptick from the last midterm election cycle. Cruz got twice as many votes in his Republican primary than O’Rourke did in the Democratic one. And O’Rourke ceded 38 percent points to two much lesser-known, less-hyped challengers. 
 
 Democrats in Texas say that if the state votes like it looks (meaning minority and younger voters vote Democratic and vote in high numbers), it can be blue. But so far there’s little evidence that’s happening, at least to the degree Democrats need. 
 
 [Signs of the blue wave in Texas? Not so fast.] 
 
 There are a lot of other places this money might be more useful: One GOP operative calculates that what O’Rourke raised in three months is more than three times what Democrats have spent in North Dakota so far. It’s more than double what Democrats have spent in Tennessee and West Virginia. 
 
 Not every state is created equal, of course. It costs more to buy TV ads in Dallas than in, say, Fargo, N.D. But those three Senate races all have something in common that O’Rourke’s doesn’t: The Democrat is more likely to win. 
 
 Texas doesn’t even make the top 10 of the Fix’s latest rankings of the most competitive Senate races. Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Democratic candidate Phil Bredesen in Tennessee are all on the list. Some of those candidates, especially Heitkamp, are fighting for their political careers. And their races are crucial to helping Democrats take back the Senate. 
 
 [Why is Heidi Heitkamp voting against Kavanaugh?] 
 
 Republicans to whom The Fix spoke couldn’t be happier to see so much Democratic money go into Texas instead. 
 
 “Every dollar that’s going to Beto," said one Republican operative watching the race closely and granted anonymity to speak candidly, “is a dollar that is not going to Florida or Montana or North Dakota.”
– Beto O'Rourke was relatively reserved in his first debate against Sen. Ted Cruz last month, the New York Times notes. In Tuesday night's debate in San Antonio, however: The congressman was "sharper and edgier," and the Hill notes that "seasoned debater" Cruz, whose Texas Senate seat is at stake, gave it right back. Some of the barbs that flew back and forth: On the possibility of impeaching President Trump if Democrats take the Senate: Cruz noted it would be "two years of a partisan circus." O'Rourke's response: "It's really interesting to hear you talk about a partisan circus, after your last six years in the US Senate." O'Rourke on Cruz's claim he has a "special relationship" with Trump: "Where is the result of that? You are all talk and no action." Cruz on O'Rourke: "Have you noticed in this debate he doesn't talk about what he has accomplished in Congress? Because he has scored political points rather than accomplishing victories for the people of Texas." During a segment on climate change and oil taxes: "Senator Cruz is not going to be honest with you," O'Rourke said. "He's dishonest, and it's why the president called him Lyin' Ted, and it's why the nickname stuck—because it's true." Cruz's retort: "It's clear Congressman O'Rourke's pollsters have told him to come out on the attack." Cruz during a discussion on civility in politics, addressing one of the moderators: "There is an anger, there is a rage on the far left," then becoming impatient when local reporter Jason Whitely tried to interject: "Don't interrupt me, Jason." A Texas Tribune fact-check of the debate tries to suss out whose insults hold water. (O'Rourke has raised a stunning amount of money, but it may not matter.)