I fully support calls for a recount in New Hampshire. That's why we want paper ballots, so we can audit. As far as I'm concerned, audits are ALWAYS warranted, regardless of the reason. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why NYVV has worked so hard for paper ballots in New York State - so we can audit and recount.
That being said, I personally believe the claims being made by some that fraud was perpetrated in New Hampshire based on polls are premature. The majority of people who look closely at elections know that there's many reasons why poll results might vary from actual results. The differences in the New Hampshire polls and the results could easily be accounted for by undecideds, people who don't want to talk to pollsters, or simply the inherent inaccuracy of polls. As I learn more about auditing and talk with statisticians I've come to see that polls are not sufficient to use as a benchmark for fraud.
While the majority of advocates in the Election Integrity movement don't see anything astonishing about the New Hampshire results, others are saying that the primary proves that paper ballots and scanners should not be chosen to replace lever machines in New York State. But there is no evidence to draw that conclusion. What New Hampshire has that New York needs is auditable paper ballots. New Hampshire will be able to recount and audit their election. That's a very good thing and I hope they do it soon.