here's your answer. The vast majority of "losses" were because the court said the litigant did not have "standing" to complain. Trump doesn't have "standing" to complain about foul play in Wisconsin because he's not a Wisconsin citizen or some such bullfrog.
By throwing it out on a technicality they could ignore all that messy "evidence". It will Assuredly be overturned on appeal, but the way appeals work, you're not allowed to introduce "new" evidence. Since "no" evidence was even Considered, in the original case the DNC lawyers are planning on not allowing it to be examined on appeal either. This will be the game they'll play until SCOTUS slaps them hard.
here's your answer. The vast majority of "losses" were because the court said the litigant did not have "standing" to complain. Trump doesn't have "standing" to complain about foul play in Wisconsin because he's not a Wisconsin citizen or some such bullfrog.
By throwing it out on a technicality they could ignore all that messy "evidence". It will Assuredly be overturned on appeal, but the way appeals work, you're not allowed to introduce "new" evidence. Since "no" evidence was even Considered, in the original case the DNC lawyers are planning on not allowing it to be examined on appeal either. This will be the game they'll play until SCOTUS slaps them hard.