The Never-ending Senate Race

As the great Coleman-Franken slugfest goes into its 156th round, it occurs to me to wonder if either side is studying what might be the most comparable precedent--the dustup between Republican Louis C. Wyman and Democrat John A. Durkin in New Hampshire back in 1964. Wiki refreshes our memory:

The initial returns showed [Wyman] defeating [Durkin] by 355 votes on election night.However, Durkin demanded a recount, which resulted in Durkin winning by ten votes. Governor Meldrim Thomson then certified Durkin as the winner. However, Wyman demanded another recount in which he prevailed by two votes. [The retiring incumbent resigned; the governor appointed Wyman to the seat; Durkin took an appeal directly to the Senate.] ...

After seven months of wrangling which included six unsuccessful Democratic attempts to seat Durkin, Wyman, having never been seated, proposed that he and Durkin run again in a special election. Durkin agreed, and the Senate declared the seat officially vacant Durkin won [the special election] handily, defeating Wyman by 29,000 votes--ending what is still the closest Senate election since the people gained the right to directly elect Senators with the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.

The result did save New Hampshire from the services of a flaming right-winger. Durkin for his part was defeated four years later (by Warren Rudman) and left little trace behind. I suppose there is a moral around here somewhere, although I can't say I know what it is.