Your predictions: Clinton vs Christie

[Farage]

What are your predictions if the tickets are:

-Clinton/O'Malley vs Christie/ Scott Brown

-Clinton/Warren vs Christie/ Susana Martinez

And what are in your opinion the most likely tickets for both Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie?

[NHI]

Christie is arguably the strongest GOP candidate against Clinton, but I think Clinton wins in both cases. Against Christie/Brown she does better as I would expect many Republicans to stay home or vote third party with two perceived moderates on the ticket, allowing Clinton a larger victory than against Christie/Martinez.

1.

Clinton/O'Malley: 428 (54%)

Christie/Brown: 110 (44%)

2.

Clinton/Warren: 294 (50%)

Christie/Martinez: 244 (48%)

Christie/Martinez > Christie/Brown
Clinton/O'Malley > Clinton/Warren

[Zarn]

I like it when the "moderates" assume the libertarians and conservatives disappear every election cycle.

Christie has zero chance to win the presidency.

[anvi]

It would be an interesting hypothetical, but I just can't imagine Christie winning the GOP nomination.  Other major candidates would have to self-destruct.  But if that did happen, you'd have a race between a Democrat and someone who is not unfriendly to Democrats, and in that case in the contemporary political environment, a strong Democrat like Clinton would win.

[Zarn]

It would be an interesting hypothetical, but I just can't imagine Christie winning the GOP nomination.  Other major candidates would have to self-destruct.  But if that did happen, you'd have a race between a Democrat and someone who is not unfriendly to Democrats, and in that case in the contemporary political environment, a strong Democrat like Clinton would win.

Yup, and not only self-destruct, but they have to refuse to give way to one another with only one "moderate" choice. Paul vs Cruz. Santorum vs Bachmann or Huckabee. Rubio would have to stay clear or be completely destroyed. That is certainly doable, but the general is impossible.

[JRP1994]

All the talk of Hillary Clinton winning in a landslide against a good GOP candidate is pretty silly. Clinton's approval ratings are so high because she, until the Benghazi story broke, was out of the political spotlight for 4 years.

From the time that Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination, until the Benghazi attacks, the Republicans saw no need to attack Mrs. Clinton personally, because they had President Obama to attack. Now, Hillary Clinton represents a real threat to their chances in 2016, and therefore, the Benghazi story gave the GOP a chance to renew their attacks on her. The result is that, in certain polls, her approval ratings have dropped from the low-mid 60s to the low 50s. This pattern has been repeated throughout her history in the public eye. When she is involved in something political, her approval ratings drop - when she is seen as apolitical, or at least outside of the fray, her approval ratings rise. If she runs, expect her ratings to drop fairly quickly.

Regardless, Mrs. Clinton is an undeniably strong candidate, in large part due to her experience. She could come close to clearing the field of any challengers to the nomination (something no other candidate could do). However, I'd be surprised if these advantages amount to more than her running 2 or 3 points better than a generic Democrat candidate.

So if Clinton runs 3 points better than a generic Republican in a normalized election, you've got this map:

However, Christie is potentially a very strong challenger - he's an incredibly popular Republican governor in a safe Democrat state, is seen as bi-partisan and pragmatic, and embraces a "no-nonesense bluntness" style of getting things done. He may have trouble in the early primary states, but if he manages to win the nomination without veering too far right, he could also run 2-3 points better than a generic Republican.

So if Christie runs 3 points better than a generic Republican in a normalized election, you've got this map:

It will all come down to which candidate runs better than their generic counterpart.

[PolitiJunkie]

Also you gave Clinton horrible running mates. She'd never pick someone as weak as
O'Malley, and she is not going to pick another woman. The most realistic VPs for Clinton would be Schweitzer or Warner. Other possibilities include Hickenlooper and Kaine. Booker and Patrick could be possibilities if she is struggling with the black vote but
I doubt it.

[Cryptic]

While Christie is great on paper, I bet he'd come out of the GOP primaries even more banged up than Romney. 

Clinton/O'Malley: 373
Christie/Brown: 165

Clinton/Warren vs Christie/Martinez probably produces a closer race.  Christie can attempt to counter the damage he took in the primaries by attacking Clinton's choice of Warren, but targeting the bottom of the ticket is only going to get him so far.  Martinez is a better choice for him than Brown, but again that's only going to do so much.  I still give it to Clinton in the end. 

Clinton: 298
Christie: 240

[morgieb]

IF he can avoid tacking right in the primaries, this race is a toss-up.

But I fear he may not, and if so will probably lose like Romney did.

[Blue3]

Clinton would, at least, win as many EV's as Obama in 2012, but with an even higher popular vote total.