CNN’s numbers for West Virginia: with 20% of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton has 63% of the vote (47,562) to Barack Obama’s 30% (22,824).

And of course, Clinton is the projected winner.

Clinton’s main argument stemming from her West Virginia win is that, historically speaking, a candidate needs to win the state to also win the White House.

Ok, so West Virginia may be important. But what about winning the most delegates? And the popular vote? And having adequate campaign funds? And not having to loan your campaign over $11 million of your own money?

Trailwatch, a Forbes blog, says:

…Wolfson also confirmed that the Clinton campaign is now $20 million in debt, hardly the financial position of a winning candidate. It could be that Clinton simply wants to end on a high note, and a win in West Virginia would certainly afford her that opportunity. Pundits, myself included, have been wrong about Clinton’s prospects throughout the election, but it’s tough to fight mathematics.

Obama should remember to enlist Clinton’s support in November as he campaigns in West Virginia. She seems to have the message that it would take to shift this once-solidly-Democratic state back to the party after two presidential elections in which it voted Republican.

Clinton’s right: she has what it takes to win West Virginia and other “swing” states. But Trailwatch is also right: she can’t fight the math. The solution? She can drop out on a high note - a landslide West Virginia win - and throw her support behind Obama, helping him win those “swing” states in the general election.

But, as always, Clinton has other ideas:

“I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign,” she told supporters in Charleston, West Virginia.

And on we go. Stay tuned.