I find it somewhat amusing that so many people are demanding the taxpayers of New Hampshire indulge their paranoia by paying for a recount. What I'm not seeing, however, is an effort to raise the money to pay for such a recount. It seems that no one wants to put their money where their mouth is. It's much easier to spread rumors and baseless allegations than it is to actually do something concrete about it.
Again, if the people making unsupported allegations want to pay for a recount, all the power to them. That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing. But ante up the cash. If they are so convinced that fraud exists, they can even justify the expense as an opportunity to have me and other skeptics in the reality based community eat some serious crow. But other than Kucinich putting a $2,000 down payment toward the cost of that recount, I haven't seen any efforts to raise that money.
If a candidate loses by more than three percentage points, a candidate may demand a recount in New Hampshire, but only if he or she pays for it.
I can only imagine that Rep Kucinich thinks he should have got FEWER votes than the write-ins(*) (figures from Washington Post):
New Hampshire Democratic Party Primary Candidate name votes % Bill Richardson 13,245 5 Dennis Kucinich 3,912 1 Total write-ins 3,076 1
Hmm. I find Kos making a lot of sense. Reminds of his proposal of what to do with John Kerry's campaign team in 2004.
I also agree with Kos' call for Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary on January 15. If I were a Democrat, the people I would not to face are: Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain (Arizona). (OK if it looked like they could lose to Ron Paul or Fred Thompson, this would set back the liberals 50 years, but I'm talking about someone who the Dems think could beat them.) So it makes total sense to have Democrats for Romney. I like the logo too.
(*) Some elections allow a voter to write-in the name of the candidate who isn't on the ballot.