This is something that, even at the time, people were debating - Hillary ran a very negative campaign on the surface. It was only when people dug deeper - and in the debates - that she offered people positivity.
The flip-side of this is that at the time, this was a mostly sound strategy. In hindsight, it sucks, but at the time, attacking Trump for grabbing women by the pussy, his racism, his failure to pay his workers money, his willingness to hire non-American workers, his willingness to have his products manufactured outside the US, his inability to keep an even head (even when it came to Twitter), his spousal rape of his first wife, and his lack of any kind of public service... Oh, and I just remembered him walking in on pageant entrants as they were getting changed.
Read that paragraph and tell me honestly that any other time, Hillary (yes, even Hillary) wouldn't have won against a candidate like that, running on a mostly negative campaign.
The election was run more on Trump's moral character, and less on what Hillary could provide. The fact that Trump still won shows that the electorate mostly just didn't give a damn, because there's no way 60+ million people should've voted for Trump.
I think Warren was my pick in the Gaf VP selection. It would've been marginally better, perhaps - doubling down on women and the economic Left - but also just as bad. The Rust Belt would still have gone to Trump, as would Florida - you just can't argue with the turnout (on either side) in Florida, and there are more racists in the pan-handle than there are hispanics voting dem.
A big thing that fucked everything up though with the negative stuff about trump was the media in trying to be "fair" tried to equivalent everything he did with something Hillary did when the candidates were on entirely separate moral planes. Basically the media made all trumps transgressions equal to Hillary's. This basically negated the negative campaign tactic.