After Senator Clinton’s upset victory in New Hampshire some online turned to the possibility of voter disenfranchisement. I have to say I was personally a little dismissive of the claim and never mentioned it on the blog. There was a great post, here, on DailyKos that went through the arguments of why the claims probably added up to nothing but hearsay and bad logic. Meanwhile I have noted that there were many flaws in the assumptions made from the polls taken before the vote, so simply pointing to the polling doesn’t provide us with a good enough reason to assume disenfranchisement.

Meanwhile also remember that the exit polling showed Clinton & Obama in a heated race. It also showed that many voters made their decision at the last minute. So the polling, which showed a percentage of the vote was undecided, does somewhat square with the vote. Also many independents turned out for John McCain, again helping people square with the polls. Again, pollsters and pundits made bad assumptions.

With all of this in mind yesterday Dennis Kucinich began publicly asking for a recount. Under New Hampshire law apparently Kucinich is entitled to a recount, but he will have to pay for it. According to the Associated Press article linked above:

Candidates who lose by 3 percentage or less are entitled to a recount for a $2,000 fee. Candidates who lose by more must pay for the full cost. Kucinich’s campaign said it was sending the $2,000 fee to start the recount.

At the end of the day it will be good to see a recount because it will help settle the matter but all evidence points to the fact that Clinton won fair and square. There is a paper trail in New Hampshire unlike other states and what has happened in the past. I mention this line of thought only because one of the candidates themselves has no brought it up, but there seems to be little evidence to point to any real big news.