It's May 2016 and you're HRC, what are doing differently with today's knowledge?

[darklordoftech]

Less “I’m With Her” and more “I’m With You”, “I’m With The People”, “I’m With America”, etc.

[E-Dawg 🇺🇦🇦🇲]

Run ads that play Trump being asked if the Iraq War is a good idea and Trump saying, “I guess so” in order to counter Trump’s claim that he knew all along that the Iraq War would be a bad idea.

Eh, I think this would have easily backfired with the public. Clinton voted for the Iraq War as a senator who had actual political power, while Trump was a non-politician with no actual power over the war giving indecisive commentary. Clinton trying to attack Trump over the issue would have been completely hypocritical and would only have further drawn attention to her own bad record.

[GregTheGreat657]

Campaign more in NC, FL, MI, WI, and PA, and pick a more populist running mate.

[Schiff for Senate]

For one thing, pick a Midwesterner or populist or economic liberal for a running mate - Sherrod Brown is an option (to limit the flow of Obama/Trump voters in the crucial Midwest states of WI and MI), and so is Bob Casey Jr., a popular Democrat who'd help keep PA's 20 electoral votes in line. (Or, if Michigan is of greater interest, then Debbie Stabenow - though a female ticket may have other consequences.) I'd also redirect some funding from VA and CO (which we now recognize as Democratic states) to WI, MI and PA, and decrease funding from IA (it's got six electoral votes!) and OH (voted for Trump by too much for funding to matter unless you sacrifice other potential wins, and may go red even then - if you want to keep the margin low choose Brown, however) - again, to WI, MI and PA. Even FL wasn't all that close, and not really necessary to a Clinton win - the Clinton states plus WI, MI and PA form a solid coalition that doesn't need IA, OH or FL, so Clinton should focus on that coalition that relies on those three Midwest states instead of focusing on states that went for Obama by less than a point. And I might add, I keep naming WI, MI and PA, but with Casey on the ballot, I'd say PA is more or less secure for Clinton (or at least not as competitive as WI or MI), so WI and MI should be top priority (and after that, PA). I'd also give NH a little more focus - it voted for Clinton by just 0.35% in reality, and in such a small state, that's few enough raw votes to swing the state very easily (the word 'little' is key, however - there's no need to redirect funding from, say, MI to run an ad in NH, which has way fewer electoral votes).