This is not how reasoning is done.
You don't start by assuming that the election was basically fair and just dismissing all complaints.
Nor does it start by assuming that the election was stolen and then going looking for the evidence.
If you do the former, you start finding your pals saying things like "There is no fraud, don't be ridiculous," followed by "We should seriously consider paying people to move to Georgia." Those two things don't er, go together very well. Also, rolling your eyes about possible software vulnerabilities when you made the exact same complaints yourself a year ago doesn't engender trust either. Corporate media will help you bury that, but the few who remember won't trust you going forward.
If you do the latter, you believe that every rustling in the undergrowth is a wolf, even when it's squirrels. (Squirrels are destructive, of course, and I hate 'em. They're just rats with pretty tails. "A rat in a prom dress" as a young friend said. But they aren't wolves.) Things look strange to you as you stroke your chin. Even after ten in a row have gone down to having a reasonable explanation, you are pretty sure that eleventh one is going to be the killer.
On the other hand, it's not a very tenable situation to say it's impossible when fraud has in fact happened in the past. When things look strange, it is honorable if nothing else, to at least admit that "Yeah, it does look strange. I'm confident there's a good explanation, but I see why it looks suspicious." You might even buy yourself some unity if you take that approach. Even if you are just pretending in order to be polite. Otherwise it looks like you have something to hide and aren't all that confident after all - which makes the suspicious ones even more suspicious.
I have been seeing a lot of motivated reasoning about the election.
Here was my expectation going in. Most of what we call fraud is really "gaming the system." You pass rules in your favor beforehand. You make it hard for people to hold you accountable. You study the system and its vulnerabilities and exploit them while technically remaining in the rules. As the mail-in voting rules were changed I recognised that as classic gaming. People can yell and scream and cry foul, but no one is going to jail.
I did expect that there would be some fraud, because there always is. The claim that there would be more fraud this time, because the Democrats hate Trump even more I found unpersuasive. If you have a trick you are used to getting away with, you use it every time, so it would only be 1) New Tricks or 2) Improved ways of finding Old Tricks. The only way that "massive fraud" was going to show up would be under the new tricks. Trump's strategy for detecting fraud was to shoot at everything that moved and be tenacious.* I actually did think his strategy was going to reveal more fraud, simply because people were looking harder and not letting go. Also, maybe something new, like vulnerable software might have shown out and been a big-ticket item. I didn't think it was likely, but I thought it was possible.
So I thought it was 90% likely that at least some chicanery was going to be exposed. That had dropped to 75% in a couple of weeks, to 50% by three weeks ago, and about 25% by last week. Something could still pop, and I hope so. There are still a few things out there that do not yet have good answers. But if there were a coordinated effort, stuff would be leaking out - innocents who were part of the process who didn't know they "shouldn't tell the election commission about this," or people who got double-crossed when the machinery wasn't used for their favorite also. Or, if it was a series of unrelated frauds some of the scattershot would have hit. The corrupt political machines in cities are there for the local elections and are built to do that job. I'm thinking Atlanta and Detroit, here.
I probably shouldn't be focusing my energy on the noisy ones. The sites I frequent and even their commenters are pretty reasonable, even in parlous times (okay, not Ymarsakr. But he's schizophrenic, so I don't count that). This isn't aimed at them. (Okay, exception again. Some of the commenters at Maggie's fall into the category I'm about to mention.) But I am seeing those words "obviously," "definitely," "unquestionably," all over the place. We've been over this a hundred times. When people say that they mean "I don't have evidence, but I'm really intense, and I want to shove off any possible objections." If the fraud is there it's not obvious, it's not definite, and it is not unquestionable. Draw your fingers back from the keyboard when you are about to type one of those words or their related concepts. It may be so. You may, upon reflection, go forward. But when those words are flying around they start meaning the opposite. I have said up until this year that those have been more common tactics among liberals, but not in 2020. That type of emphatic absolutism, itself a bad sign, has been ours this year.
*A better strategy would have been to be prepared and be smart. I was told today that one of Trump's cases was dismissed because the attorneys filing forgot to pay the fee. Folks, if he had a case he pissed it away. If you know what places are likely trouble spots and don't have top-shelf guys in place a month beforehand you just aren't doing your job. That's the regret I'm going to take away, that a dent in the chronic fraud could have been made, and wasn't.