There will be a number of interesting political developments to watch for in coming weeks. One will be the mayoral endorsement of the Working Families Party. All of the Democrats want it, but some suggest that the speaker of the City Council, Gifford Miller, has the inside track.

This is significant, not as much for the votes it may bring to a candidate, but for the potential votes a Democrat not on the ballot line could lose. For example, should Mr. Miller win the Working Families line and Virginia Fields win the Democratic nomination, whatever votes he draws would presumably be at Ms. Fields’s expense.

In a close race, the minor parties could become critical. Consider this:

In 2001, the Liberal Party chose Alan Hevesi as their standard-bearer. He lost the Democratic primary, but remained on the Liberal Party ballot line in the general election. He removed himself from active campaigning, and even endorsed Mark Green. His vote total of 8,027 was too small to make a difference, although it could have in a tighter race. But, for argument’s sake, let’s speculate what might have happened if Fernando Ferrer had been the Liberal Party candidate. Improbable, but useful in demonstrating this scenario. Would a Ferrer-Green-Bloomberg race have ended differently? Conceivably.

A smart move for the Working Families Party could be to nominate a lawyer as a placeholder, wait until late September, and remove that person from the mayoral line, substituting the winner of the Democratic primary. This is accomplished by nominating the lawyer for a judicial post, one of the few ways a certified candidate can be removed from a ballot line under state law.

Another key endorsement for Democrats is that of the United Federation of Teachers. Conventional wisdom circulating recently suggested that Fernando Ferrer had this one locked up. But UFT leadership has to be taking a second look in the face of the Ferrer meltdown.

The UFT can hardly afford to back another loser. 2001 was a disaster. First, the union backed Mr. Hevesi, a candidate with a long record of support for teachers. When he was eliminated in the first primary, the union shifted its support to Mr. Ferrer, who promptly lost to Mark Green. Mr. Green had particularly poor relations with the union, but the UFT president, Randi Weingarten, put the past aside and embraced him nonetheless. But Mr. Green lost to Mayor Bloomberg, the improbable winner four years ago.

The UFT now has greater stakes in this election since the mayor has far more sway over their daily lives than four years ago. “Wait and see” might be the best strategy before committing to a candidate now with no clear Democratic leader.

The third item that requires attention is the endorsement of the Health Care Workers, SEIU Local 1199. In 2001, it was 1199, led by Dennis Rivera, which provided the muscle for Mr. Ferrer’s strong run. My suspicion is that the cagey Mr. Rivera will hang back and endorse late as he did in 2001.They could very well end up endorsing May or Bloomberg. In 2002, 1199 endorsed Governor Pataki, in exchange for enormous concessions to 1199 members by the governor. The mayor may not have as much in goodies to distribute, but if it looks like he will win, 1199 may well reprise their 2002 strategy and back the Republican.

Meanwhile, pressure on the mayor to back away from the Independence Party line appears to have abated. That is too bad since the issue will surely come up again, in ways that will probably be uncomfortable for Mr. Bloomberg as the campaign heats up. Meanwhile, the former parks commissioner, Henry Stern, is working feverishly to restore a new 21st-century version of the venerable Liberal Party, presumably to back Mr. Bloomberg this year, and win back its place on the ballot next year.