The Democrats believed they had an election stolen from them in 2000. They would point to things that looked bad: George Bush's brother was governor of the disputed state of Florida. Well, yes, cause for heightened suspicion, but what is it do you think he did wrong? How did he game this? What was the cheating? Similarly with Katherine Harris, it was considered significant that she was a Republican who had campaigned for Bush. Okay then, that would be an explanation for why* she was doing something wrong, if it could be shown that she did something wrong. What illegal thing do you think she did? There were arguments that Florida should have laws that demanded a full recount. Hmm, maybe it should. But it didn't. If you think that there is a fundamental fairness requirement that all the ballots be recounted by hand, then take that to court to overturn that law. (You will notice that was not attempted.) But, but...The US Supreme Court justices voted 5-4 along the lines of which party had appointed them. Well, that wasn't quite true. They decided two issues, and the more important one was decided 7-2. What do you think was wrong about those decisions, other than the result? There were arguments about confusing ballots, and the eligibility of a large batch of military votes that weren't postmarked, and the infamous "hanging chads." In all cases the requirement was, as is true with all accusations in America, to provide some evidence of wrongdoing, not just evidence of suspiciousness.
We should expect the same standard to apply to Trump and the Republicans, and that's fine. Is it ironic that Democrats are now defending themselves with the same arguments they have been rejecting for 20 years, and that they are oblivious to this? Of course.