In the aftermath of the GOP losses on Tuesday night, Democrats across the nation were celebrating. In politics, a win is a win so you have to give credit where due. But there were also some folks looking to take credit it seems, with varying degrees of credibility behind those claims. You may recall that after her stunning 2016 defeat and a bit of time spent wandering around in the woods, Hillary Clinton formed a new PAC named “Onward Together.” The purpose of the group was to fundraise and promote the resistance… or something.

Well, on Tuesday night, the former Secretary of State took to Twitter to make sure everyone knew who was responsible for putting a couple of races in the win column.

The first of those two tweets actually garnered more than 18K retweets and 100K likes. That must have made her feel better I bet. But over at Redstate, Carl Arbogast was unable to contain a bit of stunned amazement that Hillary Clinton still can’t seem to get away from the idea that this is all about her.

It is hard to fathom a person exists so full of their self-importance, yet so lacking in self-awareness, they can take credit for something that had nothing to do with them.

No, I am not talking about Donald Trump (this time). It’s Hillary Clinton and her latest attempt at relevance is rather funny…

She’s delusional if she thinks she had anything to do with the Democrats gains last night. Here is a wake-up call for Hillary, her rabid supporters and anybody who else who buys into her nonsense. Hillary did help the Democrats last night.

By losing to Donald Trump a year ago.

There are two parts to this critique, dealing with the original premise and the conclusion. I’ll agree wholeheartedly with the former for starters. Hillary Clinton does seem to be caught in some sort of whirlpool of self-importance bordering on delusion. I understand how hard losing that election must have been after the entire political world had assured her she had it in the bag right up until the polls closed. But at some point she really needs to let it go.

Clinton was an unpopular and largely unlikable candidate who failed to capture the imagination of her own base, say nothing of a sufficient number of other voters in the key states needed to win the election. And yes, I’m sure there are still plenty of activists willing to take her money to work on upcoming races, but I don’t see anyone of any serious tenor running around saying, let’s win this one for Hillary, guys!

The other question deals with whether or not Trump is truly responsible for the Democratic victories. Perhaps to a certain degree, and no doubt more so than Clinton, but it’s simply not as black and white as that. New Jersey is a blue state where the election of Chris Christie was something of an aberration. By the time he was well into his second term his popularity at home had plunged far enough that the Democrats who had previously supported him were disenchanted and ready to return to their roots. His Lt. Governor was a fine candidate in her own right, but I don’t know if there was any Republican who could have won that race.

And Virginia? Yes, that was always going to be tight and the race definitely should have been winnable for Gillespie. But even if he’d pulled it out it would have been by an equally small margin. (Probably smaller.) Hillary Clinton carried Virginia in 2016 so there was clearly already enough of a Resist base present to pull off a victory. Also, the northern end of Virginia has turned into an extension of D.C. at this point. The state may still lean purplish, but from here on out it’s going to be tough sledding for the GOP there in the foreseeable future.

So did Donald Trump cause the Democratic victory there? It’s an iffy proposition. But I’ll agree that he at least had a lot more to do with it than Hillary Clinton.