Which Potential Independent Candidate Could Take Support Away From Obama?

[Politico]

Discuss whomever you think could hurt Obama if they decided to make a serious bid for the presidency as an independent (e.g., Nader hurting Gore in Florida/New Hampshire, Perot hurting Bush in many places, etc.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of the people who plausibly might run, none.  There's not much point in running a campaign to the left of Obama when the GOP is practically a lock to retain the House and is favored to retake the Senate.  Potential center-left opponents occupying the same political space as Obama are going to wait until 2016.

There aren't any centrist politicians who could pull off a run except possibly Michael Bloomburg, but I can't see him running.  He had his chance and he didn't take it.

If anyone tried to run a Perot-style insurgency, it would likely hurt Romney far more than Obama.

That said, I don't think Romney has anything to fear either.  It's too late for a creditable third-party run to begin.

[Lincoln Republican]

Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, if for whatever reason decides that Obama is not upholding leftist values, decides to challenge Obama from the left, would have the potential to take leftist votes away from Obama.

That would be, of course, if Sanders changed his mind about running, as he has said he will not be making a Presidential run.

If former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold for some strange reason launched an independent bid, he would have the potential to take votes away from Obama.

It is conceivable that, in a close race between Romney and Obama, that either Sanders or Feingold could be the spoiler in a few states, giving those states to Romney.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While there are quite a few people who conceivable could act as a spoiler for Obama, there is zero indication that any of them are a "potential independent candidate".

[Rooney]

Rocky Anderson of course!

[Lincoln Republican]

While there are quite a few people who conceivable could act as a spoiler for Obama, there is zero indication that any of them are a "potential independent candidate".

Until the date nominations have to be filed, they can be considered to be potential candidates.

We do not know what future circumstances may propel some of them to run.

[Cobbler]

Gary Johnson, if he could get name recognition.

Others would be potentially Mike Bloomberg or Bernie Sanders.

[Pyro]

There's not much point in running a campaign to the left of Obama when the GOP is practically a lock to retain the House and is favored to retake the Senate.

Yeaah, we'll see about that.

[morgieb]

Kunicich?

[izixs]

So first toss out the incredible threats (Nader running again for what reason?, Kucinich? Hah!, McKinney who?, who's that person running on the world unity ticket then?), and keep with potential threats. These would be candidate who don't sound crazy, profess left leaning views of some sort (or in some cases centrist views), and would be competent at running a national campaign on short notice.

There are a number of individuals that meet the first criteria. Sanders yes, Feingold yes, heck, a large fraction of the current senate, yes. Pretty much none of these folks would be making the plunge at this late stage due to the 3rd factor, plus being seen as traitors to the party (yes, even Sanders) and quickly smeared as a traitor for such. Lieberman might not care, but his appeal would be similar to a Bloomberg, cutting deeper into Republican numbers than Democrat numbers. (For those playing at home Lieberman is not well liked on the left and moderates are kind of sick of him to at this point.)

So Senate land (or former Senate land) is probably not the best place to start when looking for such an unlikely possibility. Next stop is the governors. A governorship is a cushy job in the purely political sense. You get to act tough, pretend to be a mini-president, and don't have to do as much strategic voting like a senator. The downside is for this hypothetical is that outside your own state you might not be well known (also a problem for senators), but also will be seen as not having a firm grasp of national issues (which senators pretend to have). What more, for a Democratic governor to jump up they'll similarly face the tar and feathering of being labeled a traitor. But unlike the senators, they have an advantage, and a possible advantage. The first is on the traitor side of things, they can claim their own executive experience shows them that Obama has done x, y, and z horribly wrong and thus the Democrats need an alternative. The possible advantage is geography. A governor is much less likely than a senator to have gone 'washington' for obvious reasons, and thus might be able to launch a national campaign out of their home state, perhaps even locking it down in their favor early. Having a start in the electoral college will make them seen as a legitimate candidate for the presidency. But if the state is too small (Vermont for instance), then even a lock of your home state won't be seen as enough.

So, which governors are popular in their home state to potentially upset the president there, come from large-ish states or swing state (aka, somewhere important), who could possibly build a national campaign, and meet the other criteria? The three names I come up with are Cuomo (big state, well connected, popular), Brown (biggest state, well known nationally, fairly popular), Hickenlooper (medium state, popular, important swing state), and Nixon (medium state, popular, important swing state). Of that list, Brown is probably the only one crazy enough to want to try.

If no governor were to try, there is always the final set of options that is everything else. A house person wouldn't be seen as credible, very few former generals could even imagine to pull off building a campaign infrastructure out of nothing as they lack name recognition to get started, and so that pretty much leaves random celebrities. Michael Moore doesn't meet the Kucinich level for appealing to voters. So that requires less activist options. So my guess would be George Clooney. He's well liked, pretty, and well spoken. Other than that, I got nothing.

So in short, such an indie candidacy of any threat to the president would have to either come out of no where, be incredibly lucky for some reason, or require someone established to throw away any hope of being taken seriously in the party again. Aka, its highly unlikely.

[Niemeyerite]

Politico wants to know who can cost Obama the election?

Politico, that person won't run, I'm sorry. Obama will win this election, no matter if Romney is the perfect candidate you think he is.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sanders maybe.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's not much point in running a campaign to the left of Obama when the GOP is practically a lock to retain the House and is favored to retake the Senate.

Yeaah, we'll see about that.

The Dems would need the economy to do much better than it is likely to for them to have any realistic chance.

As for the Senate, the GOP only needs to win 13 or 14 of the 33 seats up this year to retake the Senate.  2006 was a very good year of the Dems.  2012 will not be as good.

Here are the seats I see as either being in play or are certain to switch.
Florida is a tossup.
Maine is a double tossup since King has refused to indicate which party he would caucus with.
Massachusetts is a tossup
Missouri is lean Republican.
Montana is lean Republican.
Nebraska is a safe Republican pickup.
Nevada is lean Republican.
New Mexico is lean Democratic.
North Dakota is lean Republican.
Ohio is lean Democratic.
Virginia is a tossup.
Wisconsin is lean Republican.

Assuming that tossups toss as holds. The above list is still a five seat Republican pickup, giving them a 52-48 hold of the Senate.

While it is possible for the Democrats to retain the Senate, I'd place their chances of doing so as around 1 in 4.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Rocky Anderson of course!

This is the only plausible answer.