Clinton should strategically cede Utah and urge her supporters to vote for McMullin at this point as a way to guarantee Trump's defeat in the EC, assuming the race is generally within these parameters (it increasingly appears so).
Does that make sense though? Since a split EV probably means a Trump victory in the House, Clinton needs to win a majority of EVs. A state going to McMullin or Trump makes no difference from that perspective.
I phrased that poorly and omitted valuable context, but what I was getting at was along the lines of what Hydera said: tell her supporters to vote McMullin to guarantee Trump doesn't win the EC, with the real reason being solely to deny him the EVs. Most voters aren't engaged enough or think about these things enough to realize that it wouldn't make any tangible difference for her, win or lose. I know mandates are kind of meaningless but knocking another state/6 EVs out of Trump's column would be a bit more icing on the cake at this point. The media of course would be going nuts over how Trump lost the most Republican state in 2012; good for a landslide/humiliation narrative.
I
suppose it could at least give her a chance to fight another day if she was under 270 somehow; she'd at least be able to try to lobby the spineless House GOP to either give her the nomination or throw Trump under the bus by picking McMullin.