The Wall Street Journal has some thought on the current Minnesota Senate election:
Sorry Minnesota, but the sequel is never as good as the original.
For those who watched the Washington State governor's race recounts in 2004, the ongoing recount drama in Minnesota is just another rehash of the same script -- albeit for a U.S. Senate seat that might put Democrats one vote away from a filibuster-proof majority.
The article goes on to draw a number of parallels between the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election and this year's Minnesota Senate race, some of which have to make you wonder if someone is following a script too well--after all, what's the likelihood of the magic number of 133 votes recurring in two races, four years and half a country apart?
I'm still surprised that the people of Minnesota aren't raising hell about this. Maybe it's too cold to go outside?