To recap: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent running on the Republican and Independence Party lines, won a third term on Nov. 3, edging City Comptroller William Thompson (D).

The next election is scheduled for 2013.

And that race should begin in about, oh, I'd say, now.

Assuming they don't once again change the term-limits law and allow him to run for a fourth time -- a very fair assumption -- this will be Bloomberg's last term. And for those Democrats looking at 2013, having Bloomberg in office (rather than Thompson) "may actually better position themselves" for the next campaign, writes Sara Kugler of the Associated Press.

Here's an early-bird look -- a very early-bird look -- at potential candidates for 2013.

Thompson -- He gave up his post as comptroller to run this year, but finishing within five points was better than anyone expected. Don't be surprised if you see a lot of "Don't Blame Me / I Voted For Thompson" signs in the next couple of years.

John Liu -- elected comptroller in 2009. Would be the city's first Asian-American mayoral candidate. Click here to see my list of NYC comptrollers who have run for mayor since World War II.

Bill de Blasio -- elected city's public advocate in 2009. A former campaign aide to Hillary Clinton, de Blasio knows the in's and out's of political strategy. I expect to see him emerge as the leading Bloomberg critic in the months and years ahead.

Christine Quinn -- the city council speaker. She is close with Bloomberg which was once, but is no longer, a plus for her. Her numbers in this September's primary were less than impressive.

Scott Stringer -- re-elected this year as Manhattan borough president. As with Quinn, Stringer backed Bloomberg's successful effort to change the term-limits law. He briefly flirted with challenging Senate appointee Kirsten Gillibrand in next year's Democratic primary.

Anthony Weiner -- The Brooklyn congressman ran for mayor in 2005 and lost the Democratic primary. He was ready to run again this year, but ultimately decided against it once Bloomberg made it clear he was not leaving and would spend whatever it took to win. From the beginning, the mayor's camp expected Weiner to run and relished the fight, sending out attack broadsides at every opportunity. The feeling here was that Weiner was always afraid of getting his clock cleaned by Bloomberg. But in the wake of the closer-than-expected election earlier this month, Weiner is now going around telling everyone that he could have won. Maybe yes, maybe no. You can't win if you don't run.

Note: Democrats have lost four consecutive mayoral races in New York for the first time in the city's history. If ever they were going to take back City Hall, it would be in 2013. And that's why the Democratic field could be huge.

Every election cycle, on a list of "vulnerable incumbents," the name of Rep. Dennis Moore always comes up. The Kansas Democrat represents the small 3rd District, centered around Kansas City in the eastern part of the state. Aside from Lawrence, which includes the University of Kansas (the most liberal part of the state), the district is reliably Republican. For a dozen years, until her retirement in 1996, the seat was held by Jan Meyers (R).

But the ideological war that some Republicans find themselves in was in full bloom in Kansas in the mid-1990s. Vince Snowbarger, a strong conservative who replaced Meyers in '96, had battled with more moderate members of his own party en route to Washington. Moore took advantage of that divide in 1998, ousting Snowbarger and subsequently beating back strong Republican candidates.

(Another Kansas Democrat, Kathleen Sebelius -- now the Secretary of Health and Human Services -- also benefited from the GOP family feud by winning the first of two gubernatorial campaigns in 2002.)

In his last three races, Moore finished with at least 55 percent of the vote, a sign that some took to mean that Moore was settling in.

So while Moore continued to find his name on the list of potential vulnerables, sources in Kansas say that was not based in reality ... that Moore did his homework and was solid with constituent service. They said the only way the GOP could win the seat is if Moore retired.

And that's what's going to happen today. The move by Moore, after six terms, is thought to be a body blow to the Democrats' chances of holding onto the seat. The Kansas City Star's Steve Kraske says his retirement is "likely to open a political gold rush of potential successors." He lists several Republicans who are ready to jump in the race, including Nick Jordan, who got 40 percent of the vote against Moore last year.

Republicans say "they believed Moore ... was in trouble because of his support for many of President Barack Obama's initiatives, including the stimulus package and health care reform." Democrats say that his willingness to break from party orthodoxy, such as his votes on free trade, is what helped keep him in Congress.

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza says it's too soon to say whether Moore's retirement "is a harbinger of things to come for House Democrats or an isolated case." But if Moore "is the first of a series of Democratic incumbents who decide to take a pass on running for re-election in what is shaping up to be a very tough environment, it will widen the playing field considerably and raise Republicans chances of winning a significant number of seats in the midterms."

House Members leaving after 2010:

Democrats (8):

Neil Abercrombie (HI) -- running for governor
Artur Davis (AL) -- running for governor
Paul Hodes (NH) -- running for Senate
Kendrick Meek (FL) -- running for Senate
Charlie Melancon (LA) -- running for Senate
Dennis Moore (KS) -- retiring
Joe Sestak (PA) -- running for Senate
Robert Wexler (FL) -- resigning*
*resignation to take place in early January 2010, with special election to follow.

Republicans (12):

J. Gresham Barrett (SC) -- running for governor
Roy Blunt (MO) -- running for Senate
Mike Castle (DE) -- running for Senate
Nathan Deal (GA) -- running for governor
Mary Fallin (OK) -- running for governor
Jim Gerlach (PA) -- running for governor
Peter Hoekstra (MI) -- running for governor
Mark Kirk (IL) -- running for Senate
Jerry Moran (KS) -- running for Senate
Adam Putnam (FL) -- running for state agriculture commissioner
Todd Tiahrt (KS) -- running for Senate
Zach Wamp (TN) -- running for governor

Once, holding a majority of seats in the U.S. Senate meant having "control." Even when the Senate is split 50-50 -- as was the case after the 2000 elections -- Republicans kept their majority thanks to the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Cheney. That "control" was lost in 2001 when Vermont's Jim Jeffords quit the GOP and voted to put the Democrats in the majority. And that majority lasted only until the 2002 elections, when Republicans triumphed against the odds and gained seats.

But in the current atmosphere, the thought of 50 or 51 seats being enough to give the majority party real power seems so archaic, if not naive. Now, if you want to get things done, the magic number is 60 -- to ward off a filibuster, real or threatened, which seems to be the case with almost every issue before the Senate. I don't exactly know how the goal went from 51 to 60, but that is the new Senate reality.

Senate Democrats may have 60 seats (to be exact, 58 Dems + 2 Dem-leaning independents). But they don't always have 60 votes, and it remains to be seen whether they will have the 60 needed to pass an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

On Saturday, Majority Leader Harry Reid succeeded in holding all 60 in the vote to bring the issue to the floor. He needed 60 (three-fifths of the Senate, according to the rules, is needed to ward off a filibuster) and he got 60; every Republican (except for the absent George Voinovich) voted no. And while there had been a sigh of relief Saturday by Democrats when Blanche Lincoln (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ben Nelson (NE) stayed loyal, there is no guarantee they -- or Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for that matter -- will vote for final passage. Not one that includes the so-called public option.

On NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday, Lieberman called the thought of a government-run insurance program "radical":

We have a health-care system that has real troubles, but we have an economic system that is in real crisis. And I don't want to fix the problems in our health-care system in a way that creates more of an economic crisis.

Over at ABC's "This Week," Nelson said he would never vote for a bill that included the public option:

I don't want a big-government, Washington-run operation that undermines the private insurance that 200 million Americans now have.

With these Democrats once again expressing doubts, Reid will once again do his "we need Republicans on board" line. It was the kind of wooing we saw several months ago when the Democrats were shy of 60 votes. But if the public option is going to be part of the bill -- as Reid made sure when he unveiled the final product -- you can forget about Republicans such as Maine's Olympia Snowe, the only GOP lawmaker in either the House or Senate to vote for a health-care bill in committee. (Her fellow Maine Republican, Susan Collins, is also expected to be wined and dined by Democrats and the White House.)

And with all this attention on the Democratic centrists might come some resentment from liberals, such as Ohio's Sherrod Brown, who said on CNN, "I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the rest of the country -- when the public option has this much support -- that it is not going to be part in it."

Reid, one of a handful of Democratic senators who are expected to have a tough re-election battle in 2010, would love to have a vote on final passage by Christmas. That could be optimistic. But Saturday's vote moved them one step closer.

CONTEST: Our contest to see if any senator would break with party on the vote was, understandably, a bust. No senator did. As Ron Merlo of Glendale, Calif., correctly wrote in advance of Saturday's action, "I can't believe any Democrat would commit political suicide over a procedural vote. They can always tell their constituents that they could not vote for a final version because it contained something they did not believe in. But telling them that they prevented the bill from being discussed would be a much harder sell."

The language used by the Senate ethics committee in announcing that it was closing the investigation into Illinois Democrat Roland Burris is not the kind of stuff I'd ever want to wind up in my obituary.

Yet, Burris -- whose controversial appointment by the disgraced Rod Blagojevich is what initiated the investigation -- seemed relieved by the committee's conclusion. He was "pleased" that the inquiry had come to a close, and he thanked the committee for "their fair and thorough review of this matter." Indeed, many media headlines talked of Burris being "cleared" or "absolved" by the ethics folks.

Here's an excerpt from the committee's letter to Burris. This is what they call good news these days?

You should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading, or incomplete information to the public, the Senate, and those conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate. The Committee also found that your November 13, 2008 phone call with Robert Blagojevich [brother of the then-governor] was inappropriate. Although some of these events happened before you were sworn in as a U.S. Senator, they were inextricably linked to your appointment and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of this Committee.

While the Committee did not find that the evidence before it supported any actionable violations of law, Senators must meet a much higher standard of conduct.

I was talking about this on Friday with Peter Overby, NPR's Money, Power & Influence correspondent, who was similiarly intrigued by the committee's action, or lack of same. Here's Peter's take:

--------------------------

Now that the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has given Burris a "public letter of qualified admonition," we can pause for a moment and contemplate what that means.

Confusing? Yes. Deliberately so? Well, not so much as the case of Sen. Herman Talmadge (D-Ga.). In 1979, he was found to have committed financial improprieties, and he became the first senator to be denounced. The committee said it devised that verdict expressly so Talmadge could avoid comparisons with misbehaving senators of years past.

We always talk in our podcast about the "Listener," the one person who listens to "It's All Politics" each week.

Now, it appears there is the "Scuttle."

And that would be Shannon Cuttle, of Raleigh, N.C., who says she's a big fan but also that, after all, she is "SCuttle."

It's hard to argue.

This information comes just in time for today's ScuttleButton puzzle. But, as always, first things first. You need to know how to play ScuttleButton.

Every Friday on this blog, there are buttons displayed vertically. Simply take one word (or concept) per button, add 'em up, and, hopefully, you will arrive at a famous name or a familiar expression. (And seriously, by familiar, I mean it's something that more than one person on Earth would recognize.)

And don't focus on a political answer. It doesn't necessarily have to be political, though it could be.

A correct answer chosen at random gets his or her name in this column. Personally, I can't imagine a greater honor.

You can't use the comments box at the bottom of the page for your answer. Send submission (plus your name and city/state -- you won't win without that) to politicaljunkie@npr.org.

Here's the answer to last week's puzzle.

And, by adding your name to the Political Junkie mailing list, you will be the first on your block to receive notice when a new puzzle goes up on the blog. Sign up at politicaljunkie@npr.org. Or you can make sure to get an automatic RSS feed whenever a new Junkie post goes up by clicking here.

Good luck, and happy Friday!

P.S. I usually reveal the answer -- and announce the winner -- in this space on Tuesdays. So you should get your answer in by then.

Every Friday on Tell Me More, NPR's program hosted by Michel Martin, there is a segment called the "Barbershop," in which a bunch of guys (as well as Michel) sit around and weigh in on the latest happenings in politics, sports and pop culture. The "shop" is moderated by opinion columnist Jimi Izrael and often includes civil rights attorney Arsalan Iftikhar, syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette and, gulp, me.

This week, we discussed Sarah Palin's latest whirlwind book tour, the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to try 9/11 co-conspirators in civilian court, and Oprah's big announcement that her "Oprah Winfrey Show" will end in 2011. There also might have been an utterance from some erstwhile New York Knicks fan about the absurdity of having Allen Iverson on the team.

And, in the wacky world of homonyms, you can hear this week's segment here.

The Associated Press is reporting that South Carolina lawmakers will formally consider the impeachment of Gov. Mark Sanford (R) next week.

House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Harrison, a Republican, said "that he will gather a seven-member panel on Tuesday to begin discussing whether to begin proceedings that ultimately could remove" Sanford, a two-term Republican who cannot run again in 2010. Harrison said he plans to send an impeachment resolution to the full Judiciary Committee by Christmas.

John O'Connor of The State newspaper reports that Sanford has agreed to turn over a State Ethics Commission investigative report on his travel and campaign spending to the House, a report that has yet to be shared with the public.

The investigation stems from Sanford's mysterious disappearance from the state for five days last July, after which it was discovered he was visiting his mistress in Argentina. Those calling for impeachment have argued that he neglected his duties as governor; others question whether state funds were used to facilitate his affair.

BURRIS. The Senate ethics committee has ended its inquiry into the appointment of Sen. Roland Burris, saying the Illinois Democrat committed no "actionable violations of the law" when he was picked by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) back in December to succeed Barack Obama. Blagojevich has since been impeached, convicted and removed from office following his efforts to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder.

But in its letter to Burris, the committee:

found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading, or incomplete information to the public, the Senate, and those conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate. The Committee also found that your November 13, 2008 phone call with Robert Blagojevich [Rod's brother] was inappropriate. Although some of these events happened before you were sworn in as a U.S. Senator, they were inextricably linked to your appointment and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of this Committee.

While the Committee did not find that the evidence before it supported any actionable violations of law, Senators must meet a much higher standard of conduct.

Burris had this reaction:

I am pleased that after numerous investigations, this matter has finally come to a close. I thank the members of the Senate Ethics Committee for their fair and thorough review of this matter, and now look forward to continuing the important work ahead on behalf of the people of Illinois.

Burris announced in July he would not seek election to a full term in 2010.

There are 58 Democrats in the U.S. Senate, as well as two independents who often vote with the Democrats.

Majority Leader Harry Reid is going to need every one of them if he is to prevail tomorrow night when, as expected, he brings the Senate's version of health-care overhaul to the floor. The vote is only to allow senators to proceed with debate on the bill, which is expected to last well into December. Republicans are unlikely to provide Reid with much, if any, help in the Saturday night vote, intent on preventing debate with a filibuster.

So what do you think the final tally will be? Ben Nelson (NE), Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Mary Landrieu (LA) are thought to be the most likely of the Democrats with second thoughts about the bill. Will they vote to bring it to the floor for debate? A better question: Would Reid bring it to the floor unsure if he has the 60 votes to prevail?

In addition to the actual vote, list those senators you think will break with their respective parties. I'll figure out some prize for those who correctly nail it. Send your prediction, along with your name and address, to politicaljunkie@npr.org. Deadline is 5 p.m. ET today.

Of course, if the final vote turns out to be 60-40, and no one breaks with his or her party, then this is a most boring contest.

We are a day or so before the full Senate holds its first key vote on health care, and this is just to allow the bill to be debated. That's the lead topic in this week's episode of our "It's All Politics" podcast.

Plus: Endless chatter about Sarah Palin, the latest update on NY 23, Dick Cheney chooses sides in the Texas gubernatorial primary, and Robert Byrd becomes the longest-serving member of Congress ever.

And you can hear it right here:

Credits (as it were) --
Nonstop talkers: Ron Elving and Ken Rudin
Producer: Evie Stone
Editor (and Senate reading clerk): Cathy Shaw

Wanna subscribe to the podcast? You can do it through iTunes.

Wanna hear previous episodes? Click here.

Wanna be on my weekly mailing list? Sign up at politicaljunkie@npr.org.

Wanna follow my rantings on Twitter? Go to http://twitter.com/kenrudin.

Wanna join the "It's All Politics" Facebook fan page? Click here.

Wanna solve this week's ScuttleButton puzzle? It will be up soon!

Anyone's list of Republicans running for governor of New York in 2010 invariably starts, and stops, with Rudy Giuliani. The word on the former NYC mayor and failed presidential candidate is that he's always wanted that job. Even when he was running for the Senate, back in 2000 (setting up a prospective clash of giants with Hillary Rodham Clinton) -- a race that ended early because of his diagnosis of prostate cancer -- the feeling was he not doing what he wanted to do. And that is, running for governor.

Back then, the governorship was blocked by George Pataki, conqueror of Mario Cuomo in 1994, who stayed in office 12 years. Pataki was no fan of Giuliani's, especially after Rudy snubbed him for Cuomo in the '94 race.

Currently, New York is headed up by the weakest chief executive since Malcolm Wilson (R) served some 35 years ago. Wilson, like David Paterson (D) today, became governor only after the incumbent decided to quit. And while, on paper, Giuliani challenging Paterson makes complete sense for the Republican, the feeling here is that Paterson is not going to be the Democratic nominee next year; either he retires rather than stand up to the expected challenge by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (which is what I'm guessing will happen), or he runs anyway and loses to Cuomo in the primary. And I don't think Giuliani can beat Cuomo in the general election.

That apparently is the feeling among the Giuliani people as well. The New York Times' Danny Hakim reports that the ex-mayor "has decided not to run for governor of New York next year after months of mulling a candidacy, according to people who have been told of the decision":

His decision is a blow to many Republican leaders, who had viewed Mr. Giuliani as the strongest potential candidate in a year in which voter anger and anti-Albany sentiment appeared to be swelling.

The New York Daily News takes the story a step further; they are flatly reporting today that, according to sources, Giuliani "will run for U.S. Senate instead," taking on appointed incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand has managed to scare off serious primary opposition, despite her somewhat conservative voting record back when she was representing an upstate congressional district. (In January of this year she was appointed to the Senate by Gov. Paterson to replace now-Secretary of State Clinton.) But she has the strong support of the party elders -- read senior Sen. Chuck Schumer -- and will be well funded.

When you think back to all those big-name Democrats who were threatening to take her on in the primary, one might wonder about the degree of enthusiasm there is in her party behind her candidacy. Well, here's a name that will get them enthused: Rudy Giuliani. Despite his national acclaim in the wake of his leading the city following 9/11, many Democrats foam at the mouth at the mere thought of Giuliani. Conservatives may wince at Rudy's positions on abortion and gay marriage -- not to mention his own personal family-values history -- but Democrats are sour on him for an assortment of reasons, mostly on personality and the way he ran roughshod over them during his eight years as mayor. (And there's no telling how his longtime relationship with former NYC Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who this month pleaded guilty to corruption charges, will play out.)

Lee Miringhoff, director of the Marist Poll, notes that while Giuliani trails Cuomo in a potential gubernatorial matchup, he leads Gillibrand by 54-40 percent:

A Senate win for Giuliani in this heavily Democratic state would be a huge national story. It would also be an equally huge embarrassment for the Obama White House. It could even rekindle any hopes Giuliani has about another presidential run.

Rudy Giuliani is a marquee name in GOP circles in New York. But, if he harbors any presidential aspirations, he needs to win something. His last electoral success was his re-election as NYC mayor in 1997... a lifetime ago in politics. His on-again, off-again campaign in 2000 and his truncated run for the White House in 2008 raise serious doubts about his electoral viability.

Yet, this may turn out to be a stroke of political acumen for team Rudy. A decision by Giuliani to run for the U.S. Senate may ultimately shake things up nationally as much as his decision to pull out of the race for governor has altered the political landscape in Albany.

There's no guarantee that Giuliani would have smooth sailing to the GOP Senate nomination. Pataki's name has been proposed, and while he left the governorship (voluntarily) after 2006 with poor approval ratings, he might want to stick it to the guy who stiffed him in '94.

For the record, the last time a New York Democratic senator, appointed or otherwise, was defeated in the next election? Never.