We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

I yield to no one in my admiration for Donald Trump’s comeback. He overcame remarkable obstacles, worked like a dog, and pulled off one of the great political triumphs in American history.

But this election, despite how the propaganda press tried to frame it, was not mostly about Donald Trump. The New York Times is at it again this morning, talking about Trump’s “cult of personality.” But Trump didn’t run on personality, he ran on the issues. He talked relentlessly and effectively about inflation, the border, and war and peace. True, he digressed more than some of us would have preferred, but his policy messages came through loud and clear.

It was the Democrats who tried to run on the cult of personality. The record of the Biden/Harris administration was indefensible, so they didn’t try to defend it. Harris avoided talking about the issues as much as possible, going so far, on multiple occasions, as to refuse to say what her position on an issue is. She was, as one pundit put it, the “no comment” candidate.

Instead of substance, the Democrats chose to run on personality and identity politics. Vote for Kamala because she is “kind” and “joyful”–never mind that she is such an obnoxious autocrat that she can’t keep a staff together. Also, vote for Kamala because she will be the first woman of color to be president. Whoopee. And most of all, of course, the Democrats tried to run against the personality of Donald Trump.

It didn’t work because there are too many Americans–in all demographics, by the way–who care deeply about the cost of living, about jobs, about crime, about the border, about fentanyl, and so on. What is remarkable is not that Kamala Harris lost, but that she came as close as she did. Her showing is a tribute to the Democrats’ vast financial resources, the unflagging support of the propaganda press, and urban machines that dole out jobs and money to Democrats.

What happens now depends, I think, on the unresolved House races. As I understand the numbers, the races called so far give the GOP a net pickup of three seats. But there are a lot of races that have not yet been determined, and some observers are concerned that the Democrats could eke out a thin majority of a couple of seats. That would be a terrible development. For defensive purposes, especially, a narrow majority in the House is about as good as a big one. If he become the Speaker, Hakeem Jeffries could block most Trump administration initiatives from getting a vote in the House. That would enable the press to label Trump’s second term a failure–he talked big, but couldn’t get anything done. Which in turn would set the stage for a Democratic revival in 2026.

So keep a close eye on the House. In the meantime, we should all be celebrating. Out of all the delicious prospects now before us, my favorite is the idea of having Elon Musk deeply involved in the administration. (Will that happen? Can he possibly have time? I don’t know.) Elon says he can cut $2 trillion or more out of the federal budget. I would love to see him try.