I'm quite certain that Kucinich's recount in New Hampshire will verify the results of the primary. Nevertheless, I'm still quite happy that Kucinich is doing it.
But first, I think we need to look at some funny numbers.
Clinton Optical scan: 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan: 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted: 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted: 23,509 52.95%
Lots of folks around here are talking about how these percentages are "swapped". Certainly, this is suspicious. It seems an unlikely occurrence that could indicate some sort of interference.
Yet, what plausible explanations involving fraud or tabulation glitches are there for these percentages to be swapped? I have yet to think of one that is plausible. It can't be that all of the ballot scanners were swapping the Clinton and Obama votes: somebody would have noticed in pre-election testing if it were a bug. Or there would have needed to be a lot of conspirators to pull off hacking all the ballot scanners.
So unless someone is able to come up with a plausible explanation for these "spooky" swapped percentages, the most reasonable explanation would appear to be that it really is just a freaky coincidence. These things do happen from time to time.
Now, what about the heart of the matter — that the numbers show a discrepancy in the hand counted ballots vs. the optical scan counted ballots? The most important thing here is not to get caught up confusing correlation with causation. Just because there is a discrepancy when you cut up the numbers one way doesn't mean the criteria you used to divide the numbers is what caused the discrepancy. As the skeptics have rightly been pointing out, there are other correlations that are more likely to be the causation.
Finally, let's think a bit about confirmation bias by exploring a hypothetical: if the polls had been predicting a Clinton win and Obama performed an upset, would you be suggesting that a discrepancy such as this is evidence of election fraud or tabulation glitches?
So all-in-all, this recount thing is just a waste of time, right? Well I don't think so at all. I would love to see recounts forced upon every state that uses machine counting and doesn't perform hand counted audits after every election. And every state that uses touch screens needs to have a voter-verified paper-trail law on the books.
So if you ask me, Kucinich isn't a "wacko" for requesting a recount; he's part of the fight to get these common sense election laws put in place.
Of course, I recognize the counter argument: that this is crying wolf. But this is a state-by-state battle and I doubt that these laws will just manifest themselves without help from someone like Kucinich.