The ONLY way Norm Coleman can get the Courts to order a do-over would be if SCOTUS feels compelled to do so on equal protection grounds.  The state election contest statute does not contemplate a new election simply because the outcome is close, and I don't see the Election Contest Court ordering one.  It will finish its appointed task under the MN election contest statute, which may well end up increasing Franken's lead, and then certify Franken the winner.  Coleman will appeal, and the MN Supreme Court will almost certainly uphold the ECC decision, given the care with which the recount has been handled at all levels (imperfect though it may be).  If it does not uphold the ECC, then it will remand it back to the ECC with instructions on how to proceed given the areas where the lower court decision is reversed.  Declaring a do-over just not part of the remedial scheme, and would only come from the exercise of the Court's inherant equitable powers, but this is not the type of case where Courts exercise such powers (because nobody's life or freedom is at stake, elected office is a privilege, and not a right, and the statute provides an adequate remedy -- just because it's close does not mean a fair remedy is not possible).  If the MN Supremes affirm, then Coleman will presumably appeal to the SCOTUS on equal protection grounds, something their lawyer Ginsburg (who was one of Bush's main lawyers in 2000) is all too familiar with.

In Bush v Gore, a politically decided case if ever there were one, the 2 votes that swung the decision to Bush -- O'Connor and Kennedy -- relied on a novel equal protection argument that was uniquely applicable to a national presidential election -- and that was, in my opinion anyway, comeplete bullshit, see, e.g., four extremely well thought out dissenting opinions by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer -- and even the majority itself recognized that it would be impractical to apply the decision outside of that one election (because every election, including that one, is conducted by humans, and is therefore inherantly flawed in any number of minor ways, including some inconsistency from precinct to precinct in how certain votes and voters are counted or handled).  So if they open the door to equal protection based election challenges in Coleman v Franken, they swing open the door to equal protection litigation every time there is a close election, which would be an exercise of judicial activism that represents a sharp break from precedent (in what is not that uncommon a situation).  That was not at all what the equal protection clause is about, and it represents the opposite of judicial restraint -- they themslves know it now, and knew it in 2000 when they decided Bush v Gore, which is why, in their ruling, O'Connor and Kennedy expressly held  that the decision would not have precedential effect.   

The MN case plays much better for Franken, in the sense that, although it is an election for a national office, it is still a state election, and if the MN Supreme Court upholds the decision of the State Election Contest Court, it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will even review the case, much less reverse it.  The 5 conservative judges on SCOTUS are, for the most part, deferential to the states on such matters, and in this case, the US Constitution makes it clear that the Senate itself (and not SCOTUS) is the governmental branch with final decisionmaking authority regarding whether or not to seat Franken (assuming he wins at the State court level, which now appears likely).  SCOTUS will not interfere with that outcome despite their 5-4 tilt to the GOP (because it is not the 60th senate vote, the election was not for President, it cuts against the notion of judicial restraint that they profess to revere, and the precedent they estabished in 2000 was a bad one, and they know it).  And I doubt that the moderates on the SCOTUS would be any more inclined to second guess the state court decisions on this. 

Norm needs to get a grip, and accept defeat. He should read Elisabeth Kubler Ross and her theories on the stages of coming to terms with dying or deep grief.  He has been through shock, denial, anger, and is almost done with bargaining.  He needs to move on to sorrow/depression and acceptance.  "Go to the light, Norm, you are starting to get mangy!"  But his nature will probably prevent him from doing that before he completely destroys his political career forever. 

I believe that the Red/Blue polarity that came directly from the Florida fiasco in 2000 was the beginning of the end for the ultra-partisan conservative wing of the Republican Party, which is identified with the genial Ronald Reagan, but really best epitomized by the political style of Karl Rove and his mentor, the late Lee Atwater, and the views of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and conservative talk radio.  There are very few moderates left in the GOP.  I am old enough to remember when Reagan was Governor and then former Governor of Califormia, and considered to be a right wing extremist in his own party, and virtually unelectable in a national election.  Many of us thought Reagan would lose in 1980 despite Carter's weakness politically, because Reagan was seen as a reactionary prior to that election.  His presidency was a mixed bag which centered on tax cuts for the rich (and tolerated massive deficit spending -- sound familiar?), deregulation of business, and regressive social policies that were nothing less than a frontal assault on progressives -- round #1 of an assault that Dubya tried to finish, although in the end unsuccessfully -- and the collapse of the Soviet empire, for which he received largely undeserved credit from a fawning media (cheered on by an even more adoring right).   Somehow, in the aftermath of his presidency, because of his personal popularity and genial nature (and the weakness of his GOP successors in that office), Reagan was deified by his supporters (and by right wing pundits and politicians) as one of the great Presidents of all time, and the media bought into the notion that he was both a great President -- the Great Communicator -- and a "mainstream" Republican.  But the Atwater/Rove wing that made Reagan possible overstepped when it cheated in the 2000 election in order to force Dubya down our throats, and then used 9-11 to reinforce their political power and degrade our constituional rights, while handing out massive federal benefits (through deregulation, privatization and outright corporate welfare) to the most powerful corporate interests.  And although it took a while, thanks in large part to 9-11 (which helped Dubya politically), the consequence of piggishly overstepping the partisan divide was finally realized in the smashing Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 (and will probably be realized again in 2010 when the Dems pick up another 5 or 10 Senate seats).

Norm Coleman's actions in this Senate race are an extension of the hyper-partisanship that has been slowly destroying the GOP since Reagan's presidency ended.  Every time the Republicans do this, they alienate moderates and independents whose support they cannot live without, and dig the hole they are in that much deeper.  In that sense, Coleman's contest is not a bad thing -- it is another opportunity for the GOP to show their true colors to the American people in a conspicuous way, and it ain't pretty.  And predictably, they are diving in head first.  But not to worry, it is only a matter of time before Senator Franken is seated, and former Senator Norm Coleman is thrown into the trash heap of history, where he belongs.